ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the order, dated 24.12.2019, passed by respondent No.2 in Revision Case No.D1/13/2019, thereby confirming the order dated 25.08.2018 passed by respondent No.3 in Appeal Case No.B/ROR 980/2018, as illegal and arbitrary and to quash the same.

2. Heard Sri P.Sasidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Om Prakash, learned counsel representing M/s Om Law Firm, learned counsel-on-record for respondent Nos.5 to 8 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

3. The brief facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are that originally, the land admeasuring Acs.4.37½ gts in Sy.Nos.715/U, 716/E, 717/U and 718/AA situated at Tatikonda Village, Bhoothpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, belonged to one Komati Veeranna, who alienated the same for valid consideration in favour of the father of petitioner No.1, namely Sukarayapally Mallaiah. After the demise of her father, petitioner No.1 took care of her sisters, i.e., respondent Nos.5 to 8, and performed their marriages.

3.1. It is further averred that the subject property standing in the name of the father of petitioner No.1 was mutated in the name of petitioner No.1 in all revenue records as pattadar and possessor of the same. The mother of petitioner No.1 gave a statement before respondent No.4 stating that she had no objection for granting succession in favour of petitioner No.1. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.4 issued succession proceedings vide No.E/485/09 dated 06.03.2009, in favour of petitioner No.1 and since then, she has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the subject land without any interruption from anybody, much less respondent Nos.5 to 9. The revenue authorities also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds, and the name of petitioner No.1 has been continuing as pattadar in respect of the subject property in the revenue records. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 executed registered gift settlement deed Nos.7529/2017 and 7528/2017 dated 07.09.2017 in favour of her daughters-petitioner Nos.2 and 3, in respect of an extent of Ac.2.00 gts each in Sy.Nos.716/E, 717/EE and 715/EE, and the same were also implemented in the revenue records and accordingly, mutation proceedings vide No.B/1255/2017 dated 09.01.2018 were issued by respondent No.4, and new pattadar passbooks, title deeds, 1-B and Adangals were also issued in their names.

3.2. While so, respondent Nos.5 to 9 approached respondent No.3 by filing a petition complaining that succession was granted illegally in favour of petitioner No.1 without following due procedure and that they also have a share in the subject property; that respondent No.3, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, allowed the appeal with a direction to restore the original entries and remanded the matter back to respondent No.4 to conduct a de novo enquiry by giving opportunity to all parties and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 filed a revision before respondent No.2. However, respondent No.2, by order dated 24.12.2019, upheld the order passed by respondent No.3. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.3 passed the order in the Appeal without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without considering the documents placed on record and hence, the same is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that respondent No.3 mechanically passed the impugned order directing restoration of original entries and remanded the matter for de novo enquiry.

4.1. He further submitted that respondent Nos.5 to 9 neither challenged the succession proceedings dated 06.03.2009 nor the subsequent mutation proceedings dated 09.01.2018 before the competent authority within the prescribed period of limitation and henc