ORDER

The writ petition under Article 226 is filed challenging the proceedings dated 08.02.2020, passed by respondent No.1 in D.Dis.7981/2016/B confirming the orders of respondent No.2 passed in D.Dis.7981/2016/B dated 13.11.2017, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The case of the petitioners is that petitioners are absolute owners of land of an extent of Ac.1-56 cents in survey No.117/2 of Yerabalam village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District, being ancestral. According to the petitioners, brother of petitioners’ grandfather purchased the subject property under registered sale deed bearing No.91/1964 dated 24.02.1964. Subsequently, in the partition, the subject land fell to the share of petitioners’ grandfather, by name Bathula China Balaiah. The name of petitioners’ grandfather was updated in the revenue records and later authority issued pattadar passbook and title deeds in favour of petitioners’ grandfather. In the year, 2016, respondent No.5 filed appeal before respondent No.2 under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), without filing any application to condone delay. The said appeal was allowed on 13.11.2017. Against the order dated 13.11.2017 petitioners filed revision before respondent No.1 by raising various grounds. However, respondent No.1 dismissed the revision confirming the order of respondent No.2, without looking into the grounds raised by the petitioners. Hence, the writ petition.

3. Respondent No.1 filed counter. It was contended that respondent No.2/Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Kandukur enquired and after hearing the arguments of both sides, found that the Tahsildar failed to follow the procedure while updating Record of Rights (for short ‘ROR’) in favour of Bathula China Balaiah. Thus, RDO cancelled the entries in ROR and directed Tahsildar to issue pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of respondent No.5. Further, respondent No.1, after conducting enquiry and verifying the records, while confirming the order of RDO, stated that RDO has observed that the Tahsildar, Donakonda, in fact, violated Section 5(3) of the Act while updating record of rights in favour of Bathula China Balaiah and accordingly, dismissed the revision. Thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Respondent No.5 filed separate counter affidavit. It was contended inter alia that respondent No.5 is owner of the subject land. The lands originally belonged to Pagadala Kondaiah, S/o Lingaiah and his name was reflected in the Fair Land Register. After demise of said Pagadala Kondaiah, property was devolved upon his legal heirs. In the family arrangement, the subject land fell to the share of Pagadala Pedayogaiah, father of respondent No.5. After the death of father of respondent No.5, respondent No.5 succeeded the property. When petitioner No.1 and others interfered with possession of respondent No.5 over the subject property, respondent No.5 filed O.S.No.191 of 2015 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Darsi, for grant of perpetual injunction. The said suit was decreed on 28.01.2016. Thereafter, respondent No.5 approached the Tahsildar, seeking issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed. At that juncture, respondent No.5 came to know about issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of Battula China Balaiah and filed appeal before RDO. RDO, after conducting enquiry and after recording findings, set aside the entries made in favour of Battula China Balaiah and directed respondent No.3 to issue pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of respondent No.5. Petitioners did not produce original pattadar pass book and title deed for verification during enquiry. Thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Heard Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions