Danaboina Yadesh Yadav , v. The State Of Telangana, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30415 of 2014 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed questioning the inaction on the part of the 2nd respondentTahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for not mutating his name in the revenue records in respect of the land in Sy.No.251, an extent of Ac.2-24 guntas, situated at Manikonda Jagir Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in spite of making representation dated 18-09-2014 as being illegal, arbitrary and violation of the provisions of AP Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, (for short, "the Act").

2. The case of the petitioner is that originally the land in question is acquired by his grandfather by name Danaboina Mallaiah and the land was under his exclusive possession and enjoyment till his death and thereafter, the petitioner's father late Danaboina Gandaiah Yadav was in possession and enjoyment till his death i.e. 23-12-2000 and

thereafter, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the land without any interference from anybody. That the revenue records in respect of the subject land has been tampered in the year 1999-2000 and as a result, the name of one T. Malla Reddy was entered against the ownership column and Jana Chaitanya Housing Limited's name was incorporated under possession column with the connivance of the said persons in respect of the land in Sy. No.251/a to an extent of Ac.0-21 guntas and another name i.e. Mamindla Narasimha was incorporated in respect of land in Sy. No.251/aa in an extent of Ac.2-03 guntas under owner and possessor column.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent in spite of making representation has not corrected name of the petitioner by replacing the existing names in the revenue records. Hence, this writ petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

5. The petitioner states that he has filed adangals/pahanis (khasra) for the years 1955 to 1958 to substantiate his case.

But, learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that, the 2nd respondent-MRO is not competent to entertain the application to correct the revenue entries. I f the petitioner is aggrieved by the revenue entries in respect of the subject land, an appeal lies to the to the competent authority and further revision to the appellate authority under Section 9 of the Act.

6. Inasmuch as the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the application made by the petitioner, no direction can be issued in this writ petition and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to file an appeal as provided under the Act to the competent authority, if so advised. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

Dated: 18-04-2016 Nrg THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30415 of 2014 DATE:18.04.2016 Nrg