THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.9190 OF 2018

ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the orders dated 27.12.2017 passed by the respondent No.2/Joint Collector in Case No.D1/3733/2014 and D1/374/2016, whereby the orders passed by the respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Officer in No.B2/878/2013 dated 10.02.2014 and the orders passed by the respondent No.4/Tahsildar in No.

B/15499/2009 dated 24.01.2013 were set aside.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the official respondents and the learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents and perused the record.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that originally the subject lands situated at Pedabonkur Village, Peddapalli Mandal and District, belongs to one Surya Prakash and consequent on his death the same were partitioned among his sons namely Narsimhachari, Eswaraiah and others. In the year, 1985, mutation was done as per succession. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the unofficial respondents Nos. 5 to 8, who are the legal heirs of Eshwaraiah, have filed appeal before the respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Officer and the appellate authority passed orders on 07.02.2011 directing to conduct de novo enquiry afresh. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the unofficial respondents filed a revision before the respondent No.2 under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971. Meanwhile, one Miyapuram Laxminarayana, respondent No.6 withdrawn the revision petition. Accordingly, the Joint Collector, Karimangar disposed of the Revision Petition and directed to Tahsildar, Peddapalli to process necessary action on the subject matter as per the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, vide Proc.No.D1/3044/2011 dated 09.06.2012. In pursuance of the said orders, the Tahsildar, conducted de novo enquiry by issuing notice dated 2.06.2012 in File No.B/15499/2009 and passed orders stating that there is no land for the Legal Heirs of Late Eswaraiah as they have already sold way. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal heirs of the late Eshwaraiah filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer in File No.B/2878/2013 and the said appeal was dismissed on 10.02.2014 confirming the orders passed by the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the legal heirs of the deceased-Eshwariah filed Revision before the respondent No.2 and through impugned orders, the respondent No.2 has set aside the orders passed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 on the ground that a Civil Suit in OS Nos.67 of 2007 and O.S.No.83 of 2007 (correct number is O.S.No.44 of 2007) are pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli and Junior Civil Judge, Peddapally, respectively and further the Mandal Revenue Officer is not competent to record the partition in the revenue records.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the O.S.No.67 of 2007 was already closed one year prior to passing of impugned orders by the respondent No.2 and another O.S.No.83 of 2007 (correct No.44 of 2007) has nothing to do with the subject property. By virtue of the impugned orders, the revenue authorities wants to change all the entries and this would give a cloud over the properties and alienations will be started by the unofficial respondents and requested to set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 by allowing the writ petition.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of his contentions relied on the following Judgments:

1. Edelweiss Asset Constructions Company Ltd., Vs., R.Perumalswamy and others, (2021) 11 SCC 98

2. Erukala Uma Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another, 2014 (2) ALD 228 (DB)

3. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy Vs. D.Narsing Rao and others 3

4. Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust Vs.

Collector, Haridwar and others

6. The learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents would submit that the respondent No.2 rightly allowed the revision filed by the respondent N