Revenue authorities must follow principles of natural justice and proper procedures in property rights disputes, particularly regarding notice to all interested parties.

“ORDER:

The appeal is taken on file the report submitted by the Dy. Collector & MRO, Serilingampally Mandal. The appeal filed by the appellants herein have already been disposed by this court vide reference No.C/3668/2006 dated.22-5-2007:

Therefore this court is not having any Jurisdiction to reopen the case on passing of final orders u/s. 5 (5) of AP. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act 1971.

In view of the above observations, the present appeal is disposed off and both the parties are at liberty to file appeals before the competent authorities aggrieved by the orders passed by the authorities under relevant provisions of laws.”

16. Aggrieved by order dated 22.05.2007 of RDO, Chevella Division, two revisions were preferred before JC, Ranga Reddy, under Section 9 of ROR Act, 1971. Case No.D5/2437/2008 was filed by respondent Nos.9 to 20 herein i.e., successors-in-interest of Suraj Bhan and Case No.D5/2437/1/ 2008 was filed by M/s. Cyrus Investments Limited, appellant herein. JC in his order dated 18.10.2008 held as follows:

“Both Revision Petitions are taken on file and called for the records from the M.R.O and R.D.O. The revision petition filed by the Ganesh Pershad, that the Vendor of the Suraj Bhanu has no right or title over the Sy.No.1 of Darga Hussain Shah Wali Property, Even as per Khasra pahani and Setwar, Bahadurunnisa Begum name was reflected.

That the plan annexed to the sale deed dated: 02-09-64 in favour of Suraj Bhanu contains Begumpet Property, but not the Sy.No.1 of Darga Hussain Shah Wali Property. The then M.R.O without looking into those facts, incorporated the name of the sons of Suraj Bhanu in revenue records by deleting the name of Bahadurunnisa Begum. The counsel for the respondents draw the attention on pahanis for the year 1983-84 and 1984-85, it is clearly mentioned as “Inkumarputo rayabadi unnadi”. It appears that the then M.R.O colluded with the parties and incorporated the Ganesh Pershad names by deleting the name of Bahadurunnisa Begum in revenue record. As seen from the records passed in B1/1496/83, the then M.R.O did not follow the procedure prescribed in the provisions of R.O.R Act. As per R.O.R Act whenever M.R.O receives any application for mutation, the said M.R.O shall issue/cause notices to all interested parties to the said property. But in the present case the then M.R.O did not issue any notice to Bahadurunnisa Begum or her legal heirs, though their names were reflecting in the Setwar and Khasra pahani and pahanis and incorporated the names of Ganesh Perrshad and others in the revenue records. When this fact was brought to the notice of the R.D.O by the Respondents herein in the 1st week of September, 2006 by way of Appeal, the R.D.O rightly allowed the appeal filed by the respondents herein and directed the M.R.O to delete the name of revision petitioners herein incorporate the names of the respondents herein in revenue records. When the parties played fraud and incorporated their names in revenue records, the lower appellate authority either suo motto or on application, can correct the entries by passing final order. Even M/s. Cyrus Investment Ltd., also failed to establish his case and the alleged claim of the said company basing the sale deed in respect of the item 33 of Schedule -

IV of C.S.No. 14/58, but not Sy.No.1 of Darga Hussain Shah Wali Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District.

Hence they have no right or interest over the said property i.e Sy.No.l of Darga Hussain Shah Wali. However, the suit, scheduled land is no longer an agricultural land and moreover, the contention of the parties examined clearly, there is a dispute of title is raised, it is not open to revenue authorities to entertain proceedings under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The appropriate course of action is to refer both the disputants to the Civil Court with a direction to get their civil rights adjudicated through appropriate proceedings before the civil court.

In view of t