ORDER Heard Sri K. Ramakrishna Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri B. Mahendra Reddy for the petitioner in W.P.No. 23830 of 2005, Sri D. Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri D.B.Reddy for the petitioners in W.P.No. 20104 of 2005, other learned counsel for the petitioners in the other writ petitions and the learned Advocate General for the respondents in the several writ petitions. 2. The petitioners assail the order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district-first respondent, in Case No. D-5/2658/01 dated 25-08-2005 whereby the second respondentthe Mandai Revenue Officer, Rajendra Nagar was directed to rectify the entries under Section 166 (B) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. 3.The petitioners claim to be owners and to be in possession of specified extents of land in distinct portions of survey Nos. 65/1 to 65/33 of Khanapur village, Rajendranagar Mandai, Ranga Reddy district. They claim to have purchased the property under registered sale deeds from their predecessors in title. 4. The 2nd respondent appears to have addressed a letter dated 15-05-2001 to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District stating that wrong entries were recorded in respect of certain extents of land and sought appropriate action. Thereupon the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District issued notices proposing an enquiry under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short 'the 1971 Act'). Some of the notices were served on the predecessors in title of the petitioners and wherever the Joint Collector considered that notices could not be served, it is claimed that the notices were pasted on or near the lands in question. In some instances (as in the case of petitioners in W.P.No. 20104 of 2005), having come to learn of initiation of proceedings under Section 9 of the 1971 Act, the petitioners got themselves impleaded and participated in the proceedings under Section 9 of the 1971 Act. The Joint Collector entertained the complaint of the 2nd respondent; declared the lands described in the Revenue Records as survey Nos. 65/1 to 65/33 as belonging to the Government; directed the 2nd respondent to rectify the entries, under Section 166 (8) of the Andhra Pradesh (TA) Land Revenue Act, 1317-F (for short 'the APLR Act'); and to record them as 'Kharij Khatha Sarkari'. The petitioners are aggrieved thereby and thus the writ petitions. 65/1 to 65/33 as belonging to the Government; directed the 2nd respondent to rectify the entries, under Section 166 (8) of the Andhra Pradesh (TA) Land Revenue Act, 1317-F (for short 'the APLR Act'); and to record them as 'Kharij Khatha Sarkari'. The petitioners are aggrieved thereby and thus the writ petitions. The petitioners claim uninterrupted title, ownership and open and transparent possession of the lands for over sixty years. 5. In W.P.No.23830 of 2005 the petitioner claims to be the owner, to be possession of and cultivating the land of an extent of AC.25-00 in survey No. 67/17 of Khanapur village for over fifty years and to having purchased the property from the pattedar one Jaffar Mirza under a registered sale deed dated 07-04-1977 registered on the file of Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad West. This petitioner claims that this property was mutated in his name under the provisions of the 1971 Act. 6. The order impugned is common to all the writ petitions. The core challenge in the writ petition is projected by Sri Ramakrishna Reddy and Sri D. Prakash Reddy learned senior counsel on three principal grounds (a) that the Joint Collector was not competent to exercise power under Section 9 of the 1971 Act when it is the case of the State that the land belongs to the Government, since the provisions of the 1971 Act are inapplicable to Government lands qua Section 12 of the said Act; (b) that the Joint Collector could not have exercised power either under Section 9 of the 1971 Act or Section 166 (8) of the APLR Act to direct deletion of entries in the revenue records after a long lapse of time (in this case asserted to be sixty years or more) and; (c) that the impugned order of the Joint Collector is invalid for recording reasons for the decision based on factual conclusions which were not put to the petitioners or any other affected parties in the notices issued while initiating proceedings under Section 9 of the 1971 Act, thereby depriving the petitioners of reasonable participatory opportunity in the decision making process. 7. The first respondent issued a notice dated 18-05-2001 to some of the addresses intimating that the 2nd respondent had in a letter dated 15-05-2001 reported that as per the Sethwar of Khanapur village for 1322-F (corresponding to 1911) the lands in survey Nos. 7. The first respondent issued a notice dated 18-05-2001 to some of the addresses intimating that the 2nd respondent had in a letter dated 15-05-2001 reported that as per the Sethwar of Khanapur village for 1322-F (corresponding to 1911) the lands in survey Nos. 65,66 and 67 of the village in an extent of AC.5-30 guntas; Ac. 3-38 guntas and Ac. 7-17 guntas are classified as 'Poramboke Sarkari'; that this description had been altered illegally without orders of the competent authority, in the Khasara Pahani for the year 1954-55 and subsequent pahanies; that at present the pahanis reflect the wrong entries and bear the names of certain specified pattedars; that in the circumstances the matter had been taken up under Section 9 of the 1971 Act for correction of the entries in respect of Government lands bearing survey Nos. 65, 66 and 67; and the case was scheduled for hearing on 11-06-2001 at the specified time and the addressees of the notice may appear before the 15t respondent to defend their interest along with documentary evidence, failing which the matter would be determined ex-parte on the basis of material available on record. 8. Some of the petitioners responded c having received the notices, some who did not receive the notices but came to learn of the proceedings got impleaded and filed objections, while the other petitioners complain that no notices were received. According to the respondents in some cases the notices were affixed on the lands in question as the addresses could not be located. The petitioners in W.P.No. 20104 of 2005 had lodged objections having been impleaded as respondent Nos. 27 to 29 in the proceedings before the 15t respondent. These petitioners objected to the 151 respondent's initiation of proceedings, also on the ground that the 151 respondent had no authority or revisional jurisdiction as earlier the 151 respondent himself had dismissed a similar application by an order bearing file No. 05/5648/2003 dated 04-05-2004. One Moulavasi Harijana Society (for short the Harijana Society) had complained to the 151 respondent by an application under Section 9 of the 1971 Act that pattas were illegally granted by the Revenue divisional Officer, Chevella and the Mandai Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar (to the petitioners in W.P.No.20104 of 2005 and four others) in an extent of AC.11-20 guntas in survey no. 65/16 of Khanapur village. 65/16 of Khanapur village. The - Harijana Society had contended that the land in question was Government land which had been occupied by members of the petitioning society for long, was being cultivated by its members and therefore patta passbooks ought not to have been granted to the respondents therein. The 151 respondent by an order dated 04-05-2004 rejected the' claim of the Harijana Society on a conclusion that the Harijana Society failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish that the land in question is Government land or that its members were in occupation and possession of the land. 9. In view of such earlier determination by the 15t respondent, the petitioners (in W.P.No.20104 of 2005) object to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Joint Collector under Section 9 of the 1971 Act on the ground that the same authority had earlier held that the Harijana Society had failed to establish that these lands are Government lands; having so determined in that case, was not entitled to revisit or review the said conclusion, in a fresh exercise of power under Section 9 of the 1971 Act. 10. By the impugned order, the 1 sl respondent entertained and allowed the complaint of the 2nd respondent, purporting to exercise power under Section 9 of the 1971 Act and directed the 2nd respondent to rectify the entries under Section 166 (B) of the APLR Act by recording the lands in survey No.65 as 'Kharij Khatha Sarkari'. The copy or the substance of the complaint of 2nd respondent was not communicated to any of the petitioners or to any of the addresses of notices either. 11. In the impugned order however the Joint Collector records that the 2nd respondent had reported that on verification of the Khasara Pahani it is disclosed that the village Patwari had created illegal entries inter alia in survey No. 65 recording the same as 'survey Nos. 65/1 to 65/33 for an extent of AC.547-27 guntas and had also created another survey number as 297 admeasuring Ac.350-00 guntas and thereby had increased the tot:]1 area of Khanapur village to Ac. 1906-29 guntas as against the actual area of Ac. 958-17 guntas; and that the village Patwari had recorded patta entries erroneously to an extent of AC.156-17 guntas in survey No. 65 by creating sub-survey numbers 65/1 to 65/33. 1906-29 guntas as against the actual area of Ac. 958-17 guntas; and that the village Patwari had recorded patta entries erroneously to an extent of AC.156-17 guntas in survey No. 65 by creating sub-survey numbers 65/1 to 65/33. The impugned order also states that one Sri T. N. Rajiv had filed writ petition (W.P.No. 20388 of 2004) in the High Court complaining (in respect of survey Nos. 65/1 to 65/33 of the village) that constructions in these lands adversely impact the water body around Osmansagar; that this Court by an interim direction dated 05-11-2004 had directed the respondents No. 1 to 4 therein to ensure that no construction activity is allowed in the said survey numbers; and that the said writ petitioner (T.N. Rajiv) had alleged in his writ petition that the Patwari of the village had illegally created survey Nos. 65/1 to 65/33 for survey No. 65. 12. The impugned order substantially relies on facts obtained from the 2nd respondent's report and from the writ petition said to have been filed by one T. N. Rajiv. The 151 respondent held (insofar as the land in survey Nos. 65/1 to 65/33), that the objectors failed to establish how the lands which never belonged to any Pattadar since the day of settlement, could become patta lands of the village; that in view of a judgment of the Supreme Court, on no account can ecological features such as water bodies and tanks be permitted to be degraded or destroyed by anybody; that in the settlement, the area in question was left out from the records for these reasons; and that no claim of the objectors can be 'staked'. The 151 respondent, consequently directed the 2nd respondent to rectify the entries (in the Revenue records). 13. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit (common to all the writ petitions). The substantive defence as per the averments in the counter affidavit, to the extent they are at variance from either the notices issued or the impugned order passed, may be noted. According to the counter, on verification of the original records as well as other revenue records, it was noticed that there are no survey Nos" 65/1 to 65/33. Survey NO.65 comprised of only AC.05-30 guntas. According to the counter, on verification of the original records as well as other revenue records, it was noticed that there are no survey Nos" 65/1 to 65/33. Survey NO.65 comprised of only AC.05-30 guntas. The disputed land is adjacent to Osmansagar (a major water body supplying drinking water to the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad) and is of an extent of 547.27 guntas for which no survey number was assigned at any point of time and part of it is under submergence of the Osmansagar tank. At some earlier point in time the village Patwari had interpolated the records and created survey Nos. 65/1 to 65/33 and had recorded entries showing certain individuals as possessors or purchasers, to an extent of Ac.156-17 guntas out of the total extent of Ac.547.27 guntas. The counter also asserts that 'fraud' was committed by the "then Patwari" during 1941 and on the basis of the entries then made, similar entries were reflected in the Kasara Pahanies. Noticing such deviant entries the process of enquiry under Section 9 of the 1971 Act was set in motion pursuant to a complaint dated 15-05-2001 of the 2nd respondent, is the broad case of the respondents. 14. Responding to the specific objections lodged by the petitioners in W.P.No.20104 of 2005 regarding the jurisdiction of the 15t respondent in view of the earlier orders passed in a case pertaining to the complaint by the Harijana Society, the 15t respondent's counter at paragraph NO.5 asserts that the Harijan Society's complaint was confined to survey No. 65/16 whereas the present proceedings is as regards the total extent of lands in survey Nos. 65/1 to 65/33. Since the revenue record disclosed the names of the writ petitioners (in W.P.No. 20104 of 2005), the earlier order dated 04-05-2004 was passed sustaining their possession as against the speculative claims of the Harijana Society. Such determination does not exclude nor impair the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent under Section 9 of the 1971 Act, to deal with the entire extent of land in survey Nos. 65/1 to 65/33, is the generic defence on this aspect of the matter. 15. Such determination does not exclude nor impair the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent under Section 9 of the 1971 Act, to deal with the entire extent of land in survey Nos. 65/1 to 65/33, is the generic defence on this aspect of the matter. 15. Some of the petitioners contend that I the impugned order directing deletion of the lands in question as 'Kharij Khata Sarkari' is erroneous as Kharij Khata' in revenue parlance and usage means deletion from 'Khata'(account) in certain exigencies either due to relinquishment of the land by the pattedar or on account of the land having been auctioned by the Government for non-payment of land revenue by the pattedar, justifying alteration of the classification of 0 the land. Responding to this plea, the common counter affidavit asserts (paragraph a No.11) that what the impugned order intended was to declare that the lands are Government lands and not much more should be read into the direction in the impugned order that the lands should be recorded as 'Kharij Khata Sarkari'. What was intended is only that the lands should now be classified as Government lands. 16. In the revision proceedings before the first respondent on behalf of some of the petitioners herein, written submissions were filed. In these submissions it was inter alia contended that the lands under dispute originally belonged to one Rafid Mirza to an extent of AC.50-00. The name of Rafid Mirza was also entered in the revenue records against the said lands specifically in the Khasra pahani for the year 1954-55 and the pahanies for the subsequent years, showing him as pattedar as well as to be in possession with regard to the lands in survey NO.65. The sub-division of the lands in survey NO.65 had taken place in 1951 and the pahanies from the said period disclose that survey NO.65 had been subdivided into 33 subdivisions as Sy.No.65/1 to 65/33. The petitioners claim to have been in possession of the lands having duly purchased these from earlier owners through registered sale deeds. The vendors of the petitioners had purchased the lands in question from the original pattedar through registered sale deeds and had also obtained patta passbooks issued by the Mandai Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar. Copies of the patta passbooks were also filed before the first respondent in the Revision proceedings. The vendors of the petitioners had purchased the lands in question from the original pattedar through registered sale deeds and had also obtained patta passbooks issued by the Mandai Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar. Copies of the patta passbooks were also filed before the first respondent in the Revision proceedings. It was also asserted in the written submissions that the petitioners had applied for and obtained mutations of their names in the revenue records in respect of the lands and that copies of these documents were also filed. Further, the second respondent - the Mandai Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar had ordered mutation of the names of the petitioners after conducting due enquiry and after notice to the general public and calling unbecoming of a Government servant and contravened Rule-3(1), and Rule 3 (1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964". 4. The petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 23.01.1995 denying the charge. A detailed enquiry was conducted. The petitioner participated in the enquiry and the enquiry officer submitted his report, dated 26.05.1995 finding the petitioner guilty of the charge. The petitioner submitted representation dated 29.06.1995 to the findings of the enquiry officer. 5. Later, the first respondent after perusing the representation of the petitioner, report of the enquiry officer and the enquiry records, agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer, and accordingly, issued proceedings dated 12.12.1995 imposing the penalty of withholding one annual increment of the petitioner accruing after 12.12.1995 for a period of five years with cumulative effect. 6. Questioning the same, the petitioner has filed OANo.633 of 1997 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The Tribunal on a consideration of the material on record declined to interfere with the order of the disciplinary authority. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the alleged misconduct is not relatable to the official duties to be discharged by the petitioner, as such, the order of punishment cannot be sustained. At any rate, it is argued by the learned counsel that the punishment imposed is not commensurate with the misconduct alleged to have been established. 8. Sri R.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents sported the order of the Tribunal. 9. We have carefully gone through the order of the Tribunal and also the material on record including the report of the enquiry officer. 8. Sri R.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents sported the order of the Tribunal. 9. We have carefully gone through the order of the Tribunal and also the material on record including the report of the enquiry officer. In our considered opinion, the Tribunal has rightly considered the matter in a proper perspective and rightly upheld the order of punishment. 10. No doubt, the alleged misconduct is not relatable to the official functions to be discharged by the petitioner. But the behaviour of the petitioner with his superior officer at the main gate of the office premises will certainly contravene the provisions of A.P. C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out how the order is illegal and arbitrary and cannot be sustained. Unless there is perversity in the appreciation of the evidence by the disciplinary authority or that no prudent person could have arrived at such findings, the findings rendered by the disciplinary authority, which have been affirmed by the Tribunal, cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. We, therefore, see no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. 11. We, however, make it clear that the impugned punishment shall be treated as stoppage of one increment for a period of five years and not beyond. If for any reason the increment of the petitioner has not been restored after a lapse of five years, .the respondents shall restore the same and pay the arrears thereof. 12. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.