Ravula Venkatarama Reddy v. The State Of Telangana,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.8943 OF 2018 DATED :19.03.2018 Between :

Ravula Venkatarama Reddy S/o.Ravula Ramachandra Reddy, Aged 82 yrs, Occu : Agriculture R/o.Ammapuram Village, Thorrur Mandal, Mahabubabad District.

.. Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad & others.

.. Respondents This court made the following :

- 2 - THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.8943 OF 2018 ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government pleader.

2.

According to the petitioner, the entire extent of land in Sy.No.76 is Ac.17.34 guntas of Kantayapalem village of Thorrur Mandal, Mahaboobabad District. Out of such extent of land the father of petitioner purchased Ac.13.30 guntas in the year 1960 and his name was mutated in the revenue records and continued till he died. Further he was survived by five sons and two daughters. Petitioner being eldest, after the death of his father, in the family partition the subject land has fallen to his share. Accordingly, his name was mutated in the revenue records. However, in the year 2010 the revenue records were unilaterally altered and the name of 5th respondent is reflected. Having come to know that there is change of name in revenue records, petitioner applied to Tahsildar on 02.11.2017 for carrying out corrections. Alleging inaction by the Tahsildar, this writ petition is filed. 3.

As rightly pointed out by learned Government pleader under Section 3 (3) of A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act, 1971'), if a person is aggrieved by correction of entries in revenue records, he should apply to the Revenue Divisional Officer within one year from the date of notification of such corrections made for rectification of the entry. Therefore, petitioner can file an application within one year to the Revenue Divisional Officer and the application filed before the

- 3 - Tahsildar is not maintainable. Thus, no direction can be issued to the Tahsildar to undertake rectification of entries. Under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 remedy available is in the form of Revision and the aggrieved party should avail the said remedy or the civil law remedy, if rival claims are made.

4.

Thus, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies as available in law, the writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that there is no expression of opinion on merits and this order does not come in the way of consideration of an application filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 in accordance with law or in availing civil law remedies. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 19th March, 2018 Rds