MULKALA SAMMI REDDY Vs. MULKALA CHANDRAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred against the order passed by a learned Single Judge, in W.P. No.2358 of 2019 dated 25.03.2019, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition setting aside the order dated 08.01.2019 passed by the Joint Collector, Jayashankar-Bhupalpally District, the 4th respondent herein, and restored the order dated 18.05.2013 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani Division, the 5th respondent herein, and also directed the respondents to give effect to the order dated 18.05.2013 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are brothers. They inherited the agricultural land, admeasuring Acs.3.35 guntas in Sy.No.206, of Kondampet Revenue village, Malhar Rao Mandal, Jayashankar-Bhupalpally District (for short 'the subject property'). According to them, when they went to the office of the Tahsildar, Malhar Rao Mandal, in June, 2012, for the purpose of securing the copies of the revenue records for availing an agricultural bank loan, they discovered that the names of the appellants were entered in the pahanies from 1999-2000 onwards. Aggrieved by the same, they preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani Division under Section 5(5) of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for brevity 'the Act of 1971'), stating that the appellants herein, in collusion with the revenue authorities, got their names entered in the revenue records by tampering with the same. The said appeal was allowed on 18.05.2013. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants preferred a revision under Section 9 of the Act of 1971, before the 4th respondent, who passed the order 08.01.2019, setting aside the order dated 18.05.2013 of the 5th respondent. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 25.03.2019, set aside the impugned order dated 08.01.2019, passed by the 4th respondent, and restored the order of the 5th respondent. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is preferred before this Court.

(3.) Heard Mr.K.V.Bhanu Prasad, the learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. Prabhakar Chikkudu, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.