ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“...to issue a Writ or Writs, Order or Direction more in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in Revision Case bearing R.O.R No.D5/6048/2007,dated

20.12.2008 and quashing the same while directing the respondent No.1 to issue necessary directions to the respondent No.4 being the Recording Authority to carry out the required correction in the entire Revenue Record pertaining to the

Sy.No.59 of Kollapadkal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by mutating the name of the petitioner in such record to the entire extent of 16 gts., in Sy.No.59 in accordance with the Registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.10594 of 2006, dated

14.07.2006 held by him executed by his Vendors...”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents and perused the entire material on record.

3. The petitioner is questioning the orders passed by the respondent No.1 in revision case bearing No.ROR

No.D5/6048/2007, dated 20.12.2008 and submits that the petitioner is the owner of dry agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.16 gts., forming part of Sy.No.59 of Kollapadkal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.10594 of 2006, dated

14.07.2006 from their vendors. The vendors of the petitioner purchased the land in Sy.No.59 to an extent of

Ac.10.26 gts., out of total extent of Ac.16.03 gts., from its owners Sri Lenkapothula Thimmaiah and seven (07) others under registered sale deed dated 27.01.1986. After purchasing the land, the petitioner applied for the mutation of the land in the revenue records based on the sale deed to an extent of Ac.0.16 gts., Thereafter, the respondent No.4 issued proceedings No.D/1826/07, dated 21.06.2007 and allowed mutation to an extent of

Ac.0.02 gts., with reference to the sale deed and also issued a memo separately under the very same proceedings on 25.06.2007, intimating the petitioner that the land to an extent of Ac.0.14 gts., in Sy.No.59 was not available in the name of the vendors, as such the same cannot be implemented. After verifying the records, the petitioner found errors in the records and applied to the respondent No.4 for correction of said entries for mutation and the said mutation was allowed in part and made application for the correction of the said errors for remaining part. The respondent No.4 rejected the mutation of petitioner’s land, as such the petitioner filed revision before the respondent No.1 seeking mutation of records from the year 1986-87 and subsequently, the revision petition was dismissed by the respondent No.1 vide Case No.D5/6048/2007, dated

20.12.2008 on the ground that the petitioner filed an application after more than twenty (20) years after the entries made in pahanies, as such, the said action of the respondent No.1 is arbitrary and illegal and requested to set aside the impugned orders dated 20.12.2008 .

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the petitioner is seeking to set aside the orders passed in file No.C1757/87 in respect of Faisal Patti for the year 1986-87 on the file of the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in respect, and the orders passed in file No.D/1642/2000, dated

07.08.2000 on the file of the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram and in view of the same, the revisional authority has rightly dismissed the plea of the petitioner on the ground of delay of twenty (20) years and there is no merit in the writ petition and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

5. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner purchased the land to an extent of Ac.0.16 gts., forming part of Sy.No.