THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the official respondents and learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents and perused the material on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are owners and possessors of the agricultural lands out of Sy.Nos.95 to 100, situated at Chelpur Village, Ganpur (Mulugu Mandal), Jayashanker Bhoopalapally District and they purchased the said property by way of unregistered sale deeds and were put in possession of their respective properties by their vendors. Since then they have been in continuous possession of the same without interruption from any corner and their names have been entered in revenue records as possessors and some of them got pattedar passbooks and title deeds for their respective shares. While it being so, the unofficial respondents approached respondent No.2 by filing a revision claiming to be the legal heirs of one Sri Arkala Narsaiah and stating that one Sri Arkala Narsaiah has not sold any extent of land to anyone including the petitioners till his death and after his death, the unofficial respondents succeeded the properties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent No.2 without taking into account of the submissions made by the petitioners by allowing the revision petition, deleting the names of the petitioners in the revenue records and recorded the names of the unofficial respondents in the revenue records and issued pattadar passbooks to the unofficial respondents for Sy.Nos.95 to 100 in Chelpur Village, Ganpur (Mulugu Mandal), Jayashanker Bhoopalapally District. The impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is illegal, arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice. The respondent No.2 did not consider the documents produced by these petitioners and on the other hand, the respondent No.2 observed in the impugned order that no documents are filed by these petitioners. The respondent No.2 failed to consider the material to say that the petitioners have been in continuous possession of their lands. The Revenue Authorities have entered the names of the petitioners in revenue records by following the procedure under ROR Act and the rules framed there under and the petitioners are in possession of the same and mutated the records in favour of the petitioners and issued pattadar passbooks. The unofficial respondents without exhausting the remedy of appeal under Section 5B of ROR Act, had directly filed revision petition and the same is not maintainable.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the unofficial respondents after lapse of long period, filed revision petition and the same was entertained by the respondent No.2 with a malafied intention to grab the properties of the petitioners. The respondent No.2 without noticing the legal implications allowed the revision which is not permissible under revenue laws. If the unofficial respondents have a right, they have to approach competent Court to declare the title unless the competent Court declares the title in favour of them. The respondent No.2 ought not to allow the revision petition filed by the unofficial respondents and requested to set aside the impugned orders.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 8 basing on the counter submits that one Sri Arkala Narsaiah @ Arkala Venkata Ram Narsaiah was pattadar and possessor of the suit schedule lands in Sy.Nos.95 to 100 situated at Chelpur Village, Mulugu Ghanpur Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District apart from other lands in Sy.Nos.104 to 111. The petitioners in collusion with the revenue officials obtained pattadar passbooks in their favour without notice to them and in contrary to the provisions of ROR Act and rules made there under. The Tahsildar, Mulugu Ghanpur without conducting any enquiry, without issuing