APHC010513862021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 30746/2021 Between: Mopireddy Surendra Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) The Court made the following order: The case of the petitioners is that, the 4th respondent inherited the land to an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.1953-2 and Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.no.1955-2A situated in Doddipalli Village fields, Pileru Mandal, Chittoor District and sold the same to the petitioners through un-registered sale deed dated 15.02.2008 for a valid sale consideration and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Having recognized the petitioners possession over the subject land and upon the application made by them in Form-VI-A, the respondent authorities have mutated the revenue records and issued pattadar pass book and title deeds in their favour by following the procedure envisaged under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1971’) and Andhra Pradesh Rights in land and Pattadar Passbook Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1989’). While so, after coming to know that the 4th respondent is trying to create some sort of record in his favour with a view to create third party rights, the petitioners constrained to file a suit vide O.S.No.95/2021 for specific performance of un-registered sale deed, which is pending consideration. Thereafter, the 4th respondent made an application for mutation of his name in the revenue records to tahsildar, pursuantly notice in Form-A has been issued to the petitioners and the same has been questioned by filing W.P.No.16811/2021 wherein this Court granted liberty to the petitioners to submit their objections to the said notice in compliance of Section 19(1) and Section 5(3) of the Act, 1971 and on submission of the such objections, the Tahsildar is further directed to take note of it and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the said direction, petitioners have submitted their objections to tahsildar on 25.08.2021, but without considering and without passing any orders on the same, the tahsildar updated the online revenue records in favor of 4th respondent with respect to subject land. Aggrieved thereby, filed the present writ petition. 2. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rajanna, learned counsel for the 4th respondent and Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while re-iterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that, having mutated the name of the petitioner in the revenue records and issued pattadar pass book and title deeds with respect to subject land by following the provisions under Act, 1971, the tahsildar cannot mutate the revenue records in favour of 4th respondent, upon his application, as he becomes ‘functus officio’. He further contended that, tahsildar cannot entertain the 4th respondent’s application as he has no power to review his own mutation orders, but inspite of serious objections raised by the petitioners, tahsildar allowed 4th respondent’s application and mutated his name in revenue records which is contrary to law. If such mutation subsists, 4th respondent may create 3rd party interests which would lead to multifarious litigations, as such prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioners. 4. Whereas, learned counsel for the 4th respondent contended that, 4th respondent never sold the subject land to the petitioners and without his knowledge, the petitioners got mutated their names in the revenue records. After noticing the same, 4th respondent has rightly made an application to mutate his name in the revenue records and tahsildar has power or authority to entertain the same by virtue of the provisions of Act, 1971 and Rules, 1989. Even otherwise, pursuant to the submission of objections by the petitioners, tahsildar passed a reasoned order by allowing the 4th respondent application. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the same, they have to prefer an appeal before RDO or revision before Joint Collector, but cannot file the present writ petition. In fact, the petitioners have filed civil suit before the competent civil court and without awaiting the outcome, they cannot oppose the 4th respondent application. Therefore, the petitioners have not made out any case warranting the interference of this Court and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader while justifying the action of the tahsildar submitted that, tahsildar has rightly mutated the 4th respondent’s name as the petitioners got mutated their names wrongly earlier. He further submitted that, as against the same, instead of filing an appeal or revision before the appropriate authority, the petitioners have straight away filed the present writ petition and there are several disputed facts involved in the writ petition. Even otherwise, the petitioners can as well approach revenue authorities subject to outcome of the said suit. It is fairly settled that, this Court cannot entertain disputed facts while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226. As such the writ petition is meritless and misconceived and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The petitioners are claiming rights over the subject land under an un- registered sale deed wherein the 4th respondent is disputing the said document. It is not in dispute that the petitioners’ names are mutated in the revenue records. Rightly or wrongly, once if the names are incorporated in the revenue records, against the said mutation, the aggrieved party should approach Joint Collector through a revision under Section 9 of the Act, 1971, which reads as follows: 9. Revision - The Collector may either suo-motu or on an application made to him, call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under sections 3,5,5A or 5B, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appears to the Collector that any such decision, order Collector that any such decision, order or proceedings should be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly: Provided that no such order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under this section unless he had an opportunity of making a representation. In State Bank of India & others Vs S.N.Goyal1, it was categorically held that, it is true that once an Authority exercising quasi judicial power, takes a final decision, it cannot review its decision unless the relevant statute or rules permit such review. A quasi judicial authority will become functus officio only when its order is pronounced, or published/notified or communicated (put in the course of transmission) to the party concerned. When an order is made in an office noting in a file but is not pronounced, published or communicated, nothing prevents the Authority from correcting it or altering it for valid reasons. But once the order is pronounced or published or notified or communicated, the Authority will become functus officio. 1 (2008) 8 SCC 92 8. In light of the above and as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, once the tahsildar has mutated the petitioners name in the revenue records, he cannot, again, mutate the name of 4th respondent, as he would become functus officio. If at all, the 4th respondent, aggrieved by the earlier mutation made in favour of the petitioner and wants to mutate his name in the revenue records, as per the Act, 1971, there is a remedy available to him under Section 9, i.e, to approach Joint Collector. But in the instant case, tahsildar, without having any authority, has entertained the 4th respondent application and mutated his name in the revenue records. Hence, this Court is of the firm opinion that, the tahsildar has no power or authority to mutate the name of the 4th respondent in the revenue records, as such, the same is unsustainable and void and therefore is liable to be set aside. 9. Keeping in view, the interest of both the parties and in the interest of justice, this court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: (1) The mutation of revenue records, done in favour of 4th respondent with respect to subject land, is hereby set aside. (2) The Tahsildar concerned is directed to restore the petitioners name in the revenue records with respect to subject land. (3) Further, the petitioners are directed not to create any third party interest in the subject land, pending disposal of the suit vide O.S.No.95/2021. (4) Also, the 4th respondent is at liberty to question the mutation orders passed in favour of the petitioners earlier, before appropriate authority as per the provisions of Act, 1971, if so advised. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS