ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in Revision Case No.F3/3003/2017, on the file of respondent No.1 and to quash the orders dated 03.10.2019 passed in the said Revision, as the same is arbitrary, illegal and opposed to principles of natural justice.

2. Heard Sri C.Ramesh Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, and Sri B.Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 6.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as averred in the writ affidavit, are that the father of petitioner-Ram Reddy and father of respondent Nos.3 to 6-Malla Reddy are brothers; that ancestral properties were divided between them; and in the said partition, various extents of lands in different Survey Numbers situated at Jangama Village, Akkannapet Revenue Mandal, Siddipet Division, as mentioned para-1 of the writ affidavit, fell to the share of Ram Reddy; that after the demise of Ram Reddy, the petitioner and his brother-respondent No.11 were granted succession of subject lands equally, since respondent Nos.7 and 8-sisters and respondent No.10-brother of the petitioner have relinquished their rights in respect of the subject lands; that on application made by the petitioner and his brother-respondent No.11 for mutation of their names in the revenue records, respondent No.9-Tahsildar called for objections from interested persons and in response thereto, as no objections were received, including from respondent Nos.3 to 6, the names of the petitioner and respondent No.11 were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in their favour, vide proceedings No.B1/134/2010, dated 19.03.2010.

3.1. It is further averred that challenging the said orders, dated 19.03.2010, respondent Nos.3 to 6 preferred Appeal under Section 5-B of the ROR Act, before respondent No.2, and the said Appeal was allowed, vide orders dated 31.07.2017; that questioning the said order, the petitioner and his brother-respondent No.11 filed Revision before respondent No.1; and that the revisional authority-respondent No.1 confirmed the order passed by respondent No.2 in appeal, vide orders dated 03.10.2019, by holding that the appeal is filed within time. Challenging the order passed by respondent No.1, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. Counter is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 6 inter alia contending that Ram Reddy-father of the petitioner, being the elder son of Veera Reddy and kartha of the joint family, all the ancestral properties were recorded in his name, however, the ancestral properties were partitioned among the two brothers-Ram Reddy and Malla Reddy; that respondent Nos.3 to 6 being the sons of Malla Reddy, are in possession and enjoyment of the respective extents of land that fell to the share of their father-Malla Reddy; that petitioner, by playing fraud, got mutated the entire land, including the land that fell to the share of Malla Reddy, in his name.

4.1. It is further stated that on appeal against the mutation proceedings, respondent No.2 enquired into the matter and allowed the appeal, directing respondent No.9 to delete the name of Ram Reddy from pattadar column; to enquire into the virasath for allotment of half share each to Ram Reddy and Malla Reddy; and to sanction new virasath to the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein. That challenging the order passed by respondent No.2-appellate authority, petitioner filed Revision before respondent No.1, who rightly confirmed the order passed by respondent No.2. Hence, the present Writ Petition filed challenging the order passed by revisional authority is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner principally submitted that even according to respondent Nos.3 to 6, they got knowledge of passing of mutation orders, dated 19.03.2010, in favour of petitioner on 13.03.2012, but, they have chosen to file appeal under Section 5-B