Judgment : This Writ of Certiorari is for calling for the records of the orders of the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Medak District in Case No.F3/8034/2003-F3/11/ROR/2004 dated 11.01.2005 confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy dated 25.09.2003 in File No.A3/3202/2000 and for quashing the same as being illegal, contrary to law and vitiated by material irregularities, errors apparent on the face of the record and gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. It is the case of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 herein that they are absolute owners and possessors of the agricultural land, admeasuring Ac.24.32 gts in Sy.No.217 of Kulbagoor village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District which was inherited from their late father Gopathi Mallaiah. Gopathi Mallaiah purchased the said property in the revenue auction conducted in 1954, and accordingly, the possession was delivered and mutation was done in his favour, as is evident from the Faisal Patti for the year 1969. It is stated that late Gopathi Mallaiah, father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 also filed declaration under the A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings) Act, 1973 in Case No.889/S/75 before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Sangareddy, showing the said land in question and other lands. After enquiry and on the basis of the verification officers’ report, the said Gopathi Mallaiah was declared as non-surplus holder in respect of the said land in question and other lands by order dated 27.07.1976 in CC.889/S/75 of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Sangareddy Division, Medak District. Late Gopathi Mallaiah also availed loan from the Land Mortgage Bank by executing the registered mortgage deed dated 02.01.1970 in favour of the Land Mortgage Bank. It is stated that the said Gopathi Mallaiah had cleared the entire loan by 1979 as per the discharge certificate issued by the Land Mortgage Bank dated 08.11.2003. 2(a). After the death of the Gopathi Mallaiah, Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 being sons have inherited the said property and they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land, as is evident from the revenue records i.e. bunch of pahanies maintained by the Village Patwari from 1955-56 onwards to 2001-02. It is stated that late Gopathi Mallaiah had electricity service connection bearing No.33 to the motor pump set installed in the said land, and the electricity bills, cards and electricity slab passbooks are filed for the period from 1982 to 1992. It is stated that late Gopathi Mallaiah had electricity service connection bearing No.33 to the motor pump set installed in the said land, and the electricity bills, cards and electricity slab passbooks are filed for the period from 1982 to 1992. It is stated that pattadar passbook and title deed vide patta No.260 were also issued in respect of the said land of Ac.24.32 gts in Sy.No.217 along with other landa i.e. Ac.4.12 gts in Sy.No.220/A and Ac.1.21 gts in Sy.No.223/A4. After the death of Gopathi Mallaiah, the pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in the name of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 under patta Nos.593, 594 and 595 vide passbook Nos.444453, 444454 and 444455 and title deed Book Nos.452172, 452171 and 452170 in the middle of the year 2003. 2(b). It is stated that in the meanwhile, Respondents Nos.4 to 7 who are the sons of late Yerra Manaiah, and 8th respondent, wife of late Raju, who was also the son of Yerra Manaiah, approached the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer stating that their mother made an application to the District Collector, Medak on 02.08.1978 which was forwarded to the Tahsildar for enquiry. It is stated that their mother died in 1989 and thereafter, they came to know that the revenue records for the year 1970-71 in respect of the said land in question were changed in the name of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 though the said land belongs to their father late Yerra @ Kalal Manaiah who was the original pattadar. Late Yarra @ Kalal Manaiah gave the said land to the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 on ‘batai’ (share cropping) basis. It is stated that the 2nd respondent without conducting enquiry and without verifying the facts and the records pertaining to the revenue auction, land reforms proceedings, mutation order etc in favour of late Gopathi Mallaiah, allowed the case vide proceedings dated 25.09.2003, directing to rectify the entries in the pahanies for the year 1970-71 onwards and incorporate the names of Respondents Nos.4 to 8. 2(c). Against the said order, Petitioners 1 to 3 filed revision before the 1st respondent-Joint Collector. 2(c). Against the said order, Petitioners 1 to 3 filed revision before the 1st respondent-Joint Collector. In the meanwhile, Petitioners Nos.4 to 6 entered into the agreement of sale in respect of the land in question with Petitioners 1 to 3 before passing the orders by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer and executed the sale deeds in favour of Petitioners Nos.4 to 6 and presented for registration, and therefore, they are also shown as revision petitioners before the 1st respondent-Joint Collector. It is stated that the orders of the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer which are confirmed by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector by the impugned order dated 11.01.2005 are illegal, and the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer on the representation made by Respondents Nos.4 to 8 for correction of the entries after 30 years is without jurisdiction and void. The rectification of an entry can be sought for under Sec.3(3) read with Rules15 to 17 only within one year from the date of notification referred under sub-sec.(2) of Sec.3 to the Mandal Revenue Officer, but the said application is filed after 30 years and therefore, the impugned proceedings suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction and void. Respondents Nos.1 to 3 have committed serious illegalities in ignoring the relevant revenue records and the evidence available on record by entertaining the representations from Respondents Nos.4 to 8, contrary to law and without any basis. 3. Counter is filed on behalf of Respondents Nos.1 to 3 revenue officials by the Joint Collector denying the averments made in the affidavit stating that the writ petitioners have not filed any documentary evidence to show that their father purchased the said land in public auction. No such record is available and therefore, the contention of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 that their father purchased the said land in public auction in 1954 is not supported by any documentary evidence. If the father of the Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 had purchased the said land in public auction, there must be a sale certificate issued by the competent authority, but there is no such sale certificate available in the concerned office. In the absence of any sale certificate and the auction proceedings, the claim of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 that their father purchased the land in question was not considered. In the absence of any sale certificate and the auction proceedings, the claim of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 that their father purchased the land in question was not considered. With regard to ceiling declaration, it is stated that the self-serving ceiling declaration would not create any right over the property, and the said ceiling declaration has no effect, as the petitioners have not shown the source of title for the said property. 3(a). With regard to mortgage deed in favour of the Land Mortgage Bank and the discharge of the loan, it is stated that Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 might have shown their right and capacity to the Land Mortgage Bank, but in the absence of any basic records regarding mutation of the land in favour of the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3, and obtaining the loan from the bank would not create any right over the property. There is no record that the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 had obtained the electricity connection and therefore, the said records cannot be relied upon. It is stated that though Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 have participated in the proceedings before the Joint Collector, they have not filed any documentary evidence, as such their claim could not be considered. 3(b). In so far as the possession of the said land by the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 late Gopathi Mallaiah and after his death Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 is concerned, it is stated that the said Gopathi Mallaiah cultivated the said land two times since 1954 to 2001 i.e. in the year 1973-74 to an extent of Ac.4.00 gts and by his sons in the year 1998-99 to an extent of Ac.4.05 gts. The pahani copies submitted by Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 are manipulated. The pahani copies submitted by Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 are manipulated. In so far as the contention of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 that their names were entered in the revenue records since 1970-71 in respect of the land in question is concerned, it is stated that the then Tahsildar was not authorized to enter the name of Gopathi Mallaiah in the pattadar column in the pahani for the year 1970-71, and as per the land revenue rules, without an order or direction of the competent authority and without obtaining any permission from the competent authority and without any documentary evidence, any entries made in the revenue records in the name of the individual i.e. Gopathi Mallaiah, it would not create any right over the property. It is stated that no record was placed by Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 before the Joint Collector or by the competent authority with regard to the auction proceedings. Therefore, in the absence of entries made in the pahani for the year 1970-71 would not create any right over the property in favour of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3. 3(c). It is stated that the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer after seeking clarification from the Commissioner of Land Revenue with regard to the rectification of the record, and as per the clarification of the Commissioner of Land Revenue vide his letter ROR/128/1999 dated 14.10.1999 communicated to the District Collector, Medak, Sangareddy, the Revenue Divisional Officer/Joint Collector is empowered to rectify the wrong entries made by Patwari as an appellate authority, and as the appeal is filed under ROR Act challenging the entries therein and accordingly, the impugned order was passed. It is stated that the documents filed before this Court are not at all filed before the Joint Collector when the enquiry was conducted. During pendency of the proceedings before the Joint Collector, Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 have alienated the said property in favour of Petitioners Nos.4 to 6. As Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 have no title, their vendees i.e. Petitioners Nos.4 to 6 would not get any better title than their vendors i.e. petitioners Nos.1 to 3. It is stated that the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer was as per law and the correction of entries were rightly ordered to be rectified and the Revenue Divisional Officer is empowered to order for correction as per Rule-13(2) of A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules 1989. It is stated that the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer was as per law and the correction of entries were rightly ordered to be rectified and the Revenue Divisional Officer is empowered to order for correction as per Rule-13(2) of A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules 1989. It is further stated that Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 never raised any objection with regard to the jurisdiction, and as per the clarification of the Chief Commissioner vide letter dated 14.10.1999, the correction of clerical error can be done at any time by resorting to the provisions of Sec.9. It is stated that there cannot be any objection to take action or limitation proceedings under Sec.9 of the ROR Act. Therefore, if the Joint Collector/RDO/MRO, the recording authority genuinely feel that wrong entries were made in the record of rights due to clerical mistakes, there can be no objection for rectifying the same by resorting to suo motu process on the application made by the affected party so long such rectification is not going to adversely affect the other party. 3(d). It is stated that as the Revenue Divisional Officer has got power to entertain the application with regard to rectification as per the executive instructions of the Commissioner of Land Revenue, the Revenue Divisional Officer after conducting enquiry passed the said impugned order ordering rectification of the revenue records. It is stated that whatever documents filed by Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 were taken into account and none of the documents were overlooked. The Xerox copies filed by Petitioners Nos.1 to 3, which are inadmissible, cannot be looked into. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Joint Collector has ignored the documentary evidence and committed serious illegality. It is stated that no such document is placed by Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 before the Revenue Divisional Officer or before the Joint Collector and mere entry of the name of any person for any amount of period would not create any right without submitting any valid document or source of title as to how he acquired the property. 4. The contesting respondents Nos.4 to 8 filed a detailed counter, running into 15 pages, stating that Kalal Manaiah, father of Respondents Nos.4 to 7 was the pattadar and his name was recorded in the revenue records prior to 1954-55 till 1969-70. 4. The contesting respondents Nos.4 to 8 filed a detailed counter, running into 15 pages, stating that Kalal Manaiah, father of Respondents Nos.4 to 7 was the pattadar and his name was recorded in the revenue records prior to 1954-55 till 1969-70. Kalal Manaiah had five sons who are respondents Nos.4 to 7 and the husband of 8th respondent. The father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 was cultivating the said land on Batai (sharing of the crop) basis. Taking advantage of the situation and also the death of Kalal (Yerra) Manaiah, Gopathi Mallaiah got the records manipulated and got entered his named as pattadar and possessor, deleting the name of their father. Respondents Nos.4 to 8 were being minors at that time, their mother Sayamma asked for payment of the share of crop, but the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 denied and evaded payment of share of crop and claimed himself to be the owner. Therefore, the mother of Respondents Nos.4 to 7 filed application before the District Collector narrating all the facts and the Collector referred the matter to the Mandal Revenue Officer, and the Mandal Revenue Officer replied through a letter stating that there was no Fouthi Izafa nor Vargu Kami or izafa which means, no mutation of Failsal patti either on account of the death, increase in the land or decrease in the land or on account of any sale transaction in the land was effected. That means, no orders were passed for changing the name of the pattadars and possession after 1969-70. All of a sudden, the next year the Village Patwari entered the name of the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 as pattadar and possessor illegally which was not known to the wife of late Kalal (Yerra)Manaiah and Respondents Nos.4 to 8. As the crop share was not paid and on receipt of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the matter was referred to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy for removal of illegal and unauthorised entries in the revenue records and restoring the name of the original pattadar and possessor as existed in the Khasra Pahani right from 1954-55 to 1969-70. As the crop share was not paid and on receipt of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the matter was referred to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy for removal of illegal and unauthorised entries in the revenue records and restoring the name of the original pattadar and possessor as existed in the Khasra Pahani right from 1954-55 to 1969-70. For correction of unauthorised entries from 1970-71 onwards orders were passed, and therefore, the story of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 that the Government conducted auction and their father purchased the said property is without any basis and no material was placed and the documents filed by the petitioners are fabricated. 4(a). It is further stated that in the file relating to excise arrears of Yerra (Kalal) Manaiah for the year 1962 onwards, there is no mention anything about the auction, therefore, the documents produced by Petitioners 1 to 3 are insufficient, irrelevant and incomplete to prove the title of the petitioners. No record is placed with regard to conduct of auction and for mutation in the name of the father of the Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 in the revenue records. Therefore, the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, as confirmed by the Joint Collector are legal and valid. Entries in the name of Gopathi Mallaiah, father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 as pattadar and cultivator in the revenue records and pahanies from 1970-71 onwards are totally unauthorised, false and fraudulent. It is stated that the updating of records and statutory powers were already conferred under Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Records of Rights in Land Regulation 1358 Fasli. Subsequently Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights Act 1971 was further amended as Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act 1971. The powers, functions as existed under old Act are also continued in the new Act, as such, it cannot be said that the recording authority has no right to rectify the entries. Subsequently Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights Act 1971 was further amended as Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act 1971. The powers, functions as existed under old Act are also continued in the new Act, as such, it cannot be said that the recording authority has no right to rectify the entries. It is stated that the powers conferred under the old Act were not taken away even under the new Act and entering the name of Gopathi Mallaiah in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor in the pahanies from 1970-71 onwards are not lawful entries, and the revenue authorities taken into consideration as a civil rights dispute and ordered for rectification of illegal, unauthorised entries under the ROR Act, as there is no limitation prescribed for correction of false, wrong, illegal fraudulent and unauthorised entries in the revenue records. 4(b). It is stated that ownership rights are different from the entries in record of rights. Sometimes, it may tally with the persons and sometimes it may not tally with the persons. Therefore, continuance of illegal and unauthorised entries cannot confer any title to the said person and it will not effect for removal of original pattadar’s and possessor’s name just because of illegal and unauthorised entries existed for sometime without the knowledge of the real owners. It is stated that the orders of the Joint Collector are legal and valid and they cannot be interfered with. 5. The questions that arise for consideration are; i) whether the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy is empowered to rectify the entries made in the revenue records for the year 1970-71 onwards, deleting the name of the pattadar whose name was entered in the revenue records from 1970-71 onwards by cancelling pattadar passbook and title deed after a period of 30 years; and ii) Whether the Revenue Divisional Officer has got any jurisdiction for ordering correction of the entries in the revenue records and cancellation of pattadar passbooks and title deeds after a period of 30 years, on the application made before him. 6. The original records are summoned. I have perused the original records. 6. The original records are summoned. I have perused the original records. For the first time, a representation was made by Respondents Nos.4 to 8 herein before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy on 27.12.2000 stating that their father was the pattadar of the land in question and the said land was given in favour of the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 on “batai basis” and after death of their father, the father of petitioners Nos.1 to 3 stopped giving agriculture products (grains) etc., as required under crop sharing basis. Therefore, their mother preferred an application before the District Collector vide representation dated 02.08.1978 requesting to evict the “batai holder” from the patta land. The father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 had came to their house and requested the mother of the Respondents Nos.4 to 7 assuring that he would provide grains as required under “batai basis” regularly. It is stated that the mother of Respondents Nos.4 to 7 expired in 1989 when they were minors and thereafter, they have divided and working in various institutions as labourers. After coming to know about the aforesaid facts, they have applied for certified copies of Faisal Patti for the year 1969-70 since the name of Gopathi Mallaiah, the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 was illegally recorded as pattadar in the pahanies of 1970-71. The Mandal Revenue Officer gave an endorsement stating that neither Fouthi Izafa nor Vargu Kammi or Virgu Izafa was sanctioned in Faisal Patti of 1969-70. The then Patwari of Kulabgoor village in the year 1969-70 illegally entered the name of Gopathi Mallaiah as Pattadar while removing the name of the original pattadar Yerra (Kalal) Manaiah without having valid reasons. Therefore, they have requested to vacate the unauthorised occupants on the aforesaid lands and verify the record and direct to correct the mistake made by the village Patwari in the year 1969-70 and restore the land to the legal heirs of late Yerra (Kalal) Manaiah, the original pattadar. Copy of the application said to have been filed by the mother of Respondents Nos.4 to 7 before the Collector on 02.08.1978 was also enclosed. The copies were also marked to the Tahsildar, Taluq Sangareddy and Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy for necessary auction. There is no any endorsement as to whether the said application was filed before the Collector or not. The copies were also marked to the Tahsildar, Taluq Sangareddy and Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy for necessary auction. There is no any endorsement as to whether the said application was filed before the Collector or not. Thereupon, the then Tahsildar, Sangareddy issued a notice vide notice dated ....08.1978 for conducting an enquiry to the Patwari of Kulabgoor village and the mother of Respondents Nos.4 to 7 namely Sayamma and the Gopathi (Abkari) Mallaiah, the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 for settlement relating to payment of Mukta for the land in question. 7. The unofficial respondents and Sayamma, W/o.late Manaiah got issued a legal notice dated 01.09.1983 to the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 stating that the said land belongs to them as they being the joint family members and inherited the same after expiry of Kalal Manaiah, but the Gopathi Mallaiah, the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 illegally occupied the said land and got recorded his name in the revenue records as owner without any proper authority, therefore, called upon the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the said land within 7 days, failing which they will file appropriate civil suit for recovery of possession. 8. The 5th respondent also filed an application on 05.03.2002 for the certified copy of the Protected Tenancy Register of 1951 in respect of the land in question, and pursuant to the said application he was communicated with the memo dated 18.03.2002 stating that Sy.No.217 is not entered in the P.T.Register and therefore, the copy cannot be given. 8(a). Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued a notice in letter No.A3/3202/2000, dated 12.01.2001 posting the case for hearing on 29.01.2001. It is pertinent to note that pursuant to the petitions made by the unofficial respondents, namely E.Sayamma and 5 others on 06.12.1984 and 12.12.1984, the Collector, Medak District, Sangareddy issued a memo dated 15.09.1984 in letter L.Dis.No.A4/137/84 informing them that the provisions of Sec.98 of A.P.(T.A) Tenancy and Agriculture Land Holdings Act 1950 do not provide for eviction of the unauthorised occupants who are in wrongful possession of any land. It is evident from the petition of the unofficial respondents that the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 was authorised to cultivate the land, therefore, the Tenancy Act has no application, for taking possession of the land from the tenant, and the action can be initiated under Sec.32 of A.P.(T.A) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act 1950. Accordingly, the petition of the unofficial respondents was returned. 9. Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 made a representation before the Revenue Divisional Officer on 23.01.2001 pursuant to the notice dated 12.01.2001 stating that their father had been cultivating the said land from 1954 onwards, and by taking loan from the Land Mortgage Bank, he dug two wells. As Yerra (Kalal) Manaiah had fallen in excise arrears, his land along with the house was also auctioned. Their father purchased the land in question. Earlier, they have shown the said land under the Land Reforms Act intimating about the death of their father and they have enclosed the Land Reforms Tribunal proceedings as well as pattadar passbook etc for dropping the action. The Revenue Divisional Officer issued a notice dated 17.06.2001 posting the case for hearing on 06.07.2001 and the case was reserved for orders, as is evident from the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer No.A3/3202/2000 dated 14.09.2003 intimating the Joint Sub-Registrar, Sangareddy not to entertain any sale transaction in respect of the said land. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders on 25.09.2003 ordering for rectification of the alleged wrong entries said to have been made by the then Patwari, Kulabgoor village in respect of the land in question and the pahanies for the year 1970-71 onwards and directed to incorporate the names of the unofficial respondents herein as pattadars while deleting the name of the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3, holding that he was an illegal pattadar and pattadar passbook and title deeds granted in the name of the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 stand cancelled. 10. A perusal of the said order does not indicate under what provision of law the said orders have been passed. It is not known whether he exercised powers of the appellate authority or revisional authority. He simply extracted the contentions of the said representations of Respondents Nos.4 to 7 dated 27.12.2000, and pursuant to the said representation, a notice dated 12.01.2001 was issued and both the parties have appeared. It is not known whether he exercised powers of the appellate authority or revisional authority. He simply extracted the contentions of the said representations of Respondents Nos.4 to 7 dated 27.12.2000, and pursuant to the said representation, a notice dated 12.01.2001 was issued and both the parties have appeared. On 23.01.2001 Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 also filed a petition stating that their father purchased the said land in excise auction conducted by the then Tahsildar in the year 1956, as such their father became the pattadar and requested to drop the proceedings. But no documentary evidence has been produced. During course of trial, it is stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy recorded the sworn statement of the adjoining pattadars, namely Chawan Shankar Rao and Sonnalla Narayana of Sangareddy town who are the owners of the adjacent land on 19.10.2001. They deposed that the said land was cultivated by the Pattadar Kalal Manaiah till 1970. In 1972 Gopathi Mallaiah, the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 came into possession of the land in question, informing them that he had purchased the same in the excise auction and cultivated the land twice. The father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 expired six or seven years back and thereafter, his sons cultivated once in 1998-99, raising crops in an extent of Ac.4-5 acres. It is stated that they did not know about the selling of the land by the father of the unofficial respondents to the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 and that the said land was kept fallow since last 20 years. They did not know anything about the issuance of the pattadar passbook and title deeds in favour of the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3. 11. Based on the depositions said to have been made by the two persons who are residents of Sangareddy, who have not given the particulars of their lands said to have been situated adjacent to the land in question, the Revenue Divisional Officer believed their version, and came to the conclusion that the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 became fake pattadar and his name is liable to be deleted in the revenue records by cancelling pattadar passbook and title deed issued in his favour, since the land was said to have been kept fallow for the last 20 years. It is stated that as per the P.T.Register, no protected tenant was found in respect of the land in question. As per the Khasra pahani for 1954-55 Faisal Patti for the year 1969-70, and 1970-71 village pahani, the name of father of Respondents Nos.4 to 7 was recorded as pattadar and cultivator, but as per Faisal Patti of the year 1969-70 there is no any record to show that either Fouthi Kami Izafa or Vargu Kammi and Vargu Izafa was sanctioned in the name of Gopathi Mallaiah in respect of the said land, but his name was recorded as pattadar and possessor in Col.Nos.11 and 16 of the Pahanies for the year 1970-71 without there being any supporting documents. Therefore, it is stated that the name of the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 was illegally entered in the revenue records as pattadar which requires to be rectified, as the purchase of the said land by the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 was not established. It is further stated that as per the clarification sought by the District Collector, Karimnagar vide letter dated 01.06.1999 from the Chief Commissioner of Land and Administration, Hyderabad with regard to the enforcement of the ROR Act for rectification of the wrong entries in the revenue entries, the Commissioner, Land Reforms vide his letter dated 09.11.1999 clarified the matter as under; “The matter is examined by the Commissioner (Legal Affairs) and the Commissioner has clarified that in correction of clerical errors it can be done any time by resorting to the provisions of Sec.9 provided such correction is not going to adversely affect any person. There cannot be any objection to take action or limitation proceedings under Sec.9 of the Act 26 of 1971. Therefore, if the Collector, MRO, RDO or recording authority genuinely feel that wrong entries were made in the records of rights due to clerical mistake, then there can be no objection for rectifying the same by resorting to suomotu process or on the application of affected party, so long as such rectification is not going to adversely affect any other party”. Keeping in view of the aforesaid clarification, the impugned orders were passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 12. Keeping in view of the aforesaid clarification, the impugned orders were passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 12. As against the said order, Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 herein filed an appeal/revision under Sec.158 of the Land Revenue Act read with Sec.9 of A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act 1971 on various grounds stating that the possession of the Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 was admitted by the unofficial respondents, and the Revenue Divisional Officer without verifying the record passed the impugned order. It is stated that the appropriate Forum is Civil Court to resolve the dispute for eviction and deciding the title of the property, but not by the revenue authorities. The Revenue Divisional Officer also failed to refer the file relating to auction of the said property for recovery of excise arrears. In the said revision, Petitioners Nos.4 to 6 have filed application for their impleadment as they have purchased the said property. The learned counsel for Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 herein also raised various additional grounds dated 28.08.2004. 13. The Revenue Divisional Officer also failed to refer the file relating to auction of the said property for recovery of excise arrears. In the said revision, Petitioners Nos.4 to 6 have filed application for their impleadment as they have purchased the said property. The learned counsel for Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 herein also raised various additional grounds dated 28.08.2004. 13. A perusal of the record indicates that the petitioners herein have filed the entire record, such as land revenue receipts from 1977 to 1993, certified copies of pahanies from 1955-56 to 2001-02, abstract of pahanies, bill card for the electricity service connection No.33 of Kulabgoor village, slab passbook of electricity consumption charges, pattadar passbook as well as title deed issued to Gopathi Mallaiah, pattadar passbooks and title deeds for patta No.553, 594 and 595 issued to Petitioners Nos.1 to 3, Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank passbook of the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3, receipt in Urdu issued by the Tahsildar, Sangareddy dated 01.12.1954 containing the reference file No.248/3617/56 dated 30.05.1959, letter issued by the Tahsildar, Sangareddy addressed to the Revenue Inspector, Sangareddy in letter No.248/3517/85 dated 17.07.1963 and translated version, the relevant entries of the mutation register as per the orders in file No.248/3617/56 showing the endorsement of the then Deputy Tahsildar dated 26.10.1968, inspection report of the Tahsildar on a declaration filed by the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 under Sec.8/18 of the A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act 1975, proceedings of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Sangareddy Division, Medak District in CC.889/S/75 declaring that the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 was not having surplus lands including lands in question which was shown in declaration, copy of the petition filed by the mother of Respondents Nos.2 to 7 dated 02.08.1978 and 28.08.1978, and the Memo issued by the District Collector, Medak dated 15.09.1984 informing E.Sayamma, the mother of Respondents Nos.4 to 7 that the case file does not come within the purview of Sec.98 of the Tenancy Act, and that the proper provisions to the case is under Sec.32 of the A.P.(T.A) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950, legal notice issued by Respondents Nos.4 to 7 and their mother on 01.09.1983 and the subsequent notice issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer relating to the case in question, and the memo issued by the Administrative Officer, Collectorate, Medak dated 28.09.2004 stating that the certified copies of the documents cannot be furnished as they are interoffice correspondence. 14. After considering the rival contentions, the Joint Collector, Medak made the following order; “On careful examination of the rival contentions and perusal of the record made available, it is admitted by the revision petitioners that the suit lands were acquired by their father by way of purchase in public auction in the year 1954 which was conducted for realisation of the excise arrears. However, the revision petitioners failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of this plea stating that the original file was misplaced. Regarding production of original documents and other papers, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners stated that he could not file the original papers, as there is likelihood of misplacement. Moreover, the revision petitioners Nos.4 to 6 got themselves impleaded to the proceedings stating that they have purchased the said land from the revision petitioners. This clearly shows that the revision petitioners Nos.1 to 3 are in haste to dispose of the suit land to get rid of themselves from the litigation. Transferring the property when the same is under dispute is void under the Regulations of Transfer of Property Act. This act of revision petitioners Nos.1 to 3 gives scope for suspicion as to whether their father has really acquired the property in auction, more particularly, in the absence of furnishing any documentary evidence and also by resorting to transfer the suit lands to third parties. Further, in the impugned orders, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy has clearly discussed all the aspects referring the records and the changes that were undertaken which need not be reiterated. After examining the material placed before me, and in the absence of crucial documents viz., documents showing the purchase of the suit lands in open auction by the father of the revision petitioners herein and keeping in view of the action of the revision petitioners Nos.1 to 3 in trying to alienate the suit lands in favour of the revision petitioners Nos.4 to 6, I am not inclined to agree with the contentions of the revision petitioners herein. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed.” 15. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed.” 15. To consider legality or otherwise of the impugned orders herein, it is required to be noticed some of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). It is relevant to note down some of the definitions as defined under Sec.2 of the Act, for the sake of convenience; Under Sec.2(2) “Collector” means the Collector of a district and includes “Joint Collector”. Under Sec.2(4) “Land” means land which is used or is capable of being used for purposes of agriculture, including horticulture but does not include land used exclusively for non-agricultural purposes. Under Sec.2(4-a) “Mandal Revenue Officer” means the Officer-in-charge of a Revenue Mandal and includes any Officer of the Revenue Department authorised by the Commissioner to perform the functions of the Mandal Revenue Officer under this Act. Under Sec.2(6-a) “Owner” means a person who has permanent and heritable rights of possession on the land which can be alienated and includes the holder of a patta issued to him as a landless poor person. Under Sec.2(6-b) “title deed and passbook” means the title deed and passbook issued under Sec.6-A. Under Sec.2(7) “Pattadar” includes every person who holds land directly under the Government under a patta whose name is registered in the land revenue accounts of the Government as pattadar and who is liable to pay land revenue. Under Sec.2(9) “Record of Rights” means records prepared and maintained under the provisions, or for the purposes of this Act. Under Sec.2(10) “Recording Authority” means such officer of the Revenue Department as may be notified by the Collector (or the Commissioner) to be the recording authority for the purposes of this Act. Under Sec.2(10-a) “Revenue Divisional Officer” means the Deputy Collector in-charge of Revenue Division and includes a Sub-Collector or an Assistant Collector. 15(a). Under Sec.2(10) “Recording Authority” means such officer of the Revenue Department as may be notified by the Collector (or the Commissioner) to be the recording authority for the purposes of this Act. Under Sec.2(10-a) “Revenue Divisional Officer” means the Deputy Collector in-charge of Revenue Division and includes a Sub-Collector or an Assistant Collector. 15(a). Under Sec.3(1), record of rights in all lands in every village containing the particulars of names of all the persons who are the owners, pattadars, mortgagees, occupants or tenants of lands, the nature and extent of the respective rights or interest of such persons and the conditions or liabilities if any, attaching thereto, the rent, revenue or other amount, if any, payable by, or to any of such persons, and such other particulars shall be prepared and maintained, and after completion of preparation of records of rights, the effect of completion shall also be notified. 15(b). Under Sec.3(3), any person affected by an entry in such record of rights may, within a period of one year from the date of the notification shall apply for rectification of the entry to such officer as may be prescribed, and the said officer may, after such inquiry give his decision on such application and direct the rectification of the record of rights, and such decision shall be final subject to the provisions of Sec.9. 15(c). Under Sec.3-A, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act 1317 Fasli or any other law for the time being in force, which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act shall have effect subject to such omissions or modifications, as may be required for the removal of the inconsistency. Therefore, there is no dispute that the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act are enforceable in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 15(d). Under Sec.4, after preparation of the record of right, if that right is acquired by any other person, in any other manner such as succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, Government patta, the decree of a civil Court or otherwise any right as owner, pattadar, mortgagee, occupant or tenant of a land and any person acquiring any right as occupant of a land by any other method shall intimate in writing his acquisition of such right, to the Mandal Revenue Officer within ninety days from the date of such acquisition. Every registering officer registering any document relating to a transaction in land, such as sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise shall also intimate the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer so as to enable him to enter the right acquired by the concerned in the revenue records under Sec.5 of the Act. 15(e). Under Sec.5 of the Act, on receipt of intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right under Sec.4, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall determine as to whether, and if so in what manner, the record of rights required to be amended in consequence therefor and shall carry out the amendment in the record of rights in accordance with such determination. If the Mandal Revenue Officer refuses to make any amendment after giving reasonable opportunity to the person of making a representation, he shall intimate to the person making representation if he has reason to believe that acquisition of any right has taken place, he shall amend the record of rights after giving reasonable opportunity to all the persons concerned, communicating the orders passed to the persons concerned. Against the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer either making amendment in record of rights or refusing to make the amendment, the appeal lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the said order under Sec.5(5) of the Act, and the decision of the appellate authority i.e. Revenue Divisional Officer shall be final subject to the provisions of Sec.9. Under Sec.5(5) of the Act the Mandal Revenue Officer shall have the power to correct clerical errors, if any in the passbooks. 15(f). Sec.5-A has no application in the instant case as the said section relates to the regularisation of certain alienations or other transfers of lands otherwise than by registered documents and if any unregistered document is regularised by collecting the registered fee and stamp duty or refused to be regularised, appeal lies under Sec.5-B against the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer made under Sec.5-A(4). Therefore, Secs.5-A and 5-B have no application to the case on hand as it is not an appeal filed by the unofficial respondents against the orders made by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Sec.5-A(4) regularising the unregistered document. 15(g). Therefore, Secs.5-A and 5-B have no application to the case on hand as it is not an appeal filed by the unofficial respondents against the orders made by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Sec.5-A(4) regularising the unregistered document. 15(g). Under Sec.6, every entry in the record of rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or until it is otherwise amended in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Any mortgage or charge created earlier to mortgage or charge created in favour of a credit agency shall lose its right in its priority if it is not entered in the pattadar passbook. If there is any transfer of right and such alienation shall have an entry in the pattadar passbook under Sec.6-A. 15(h). Under Sec.7, the record of rights shall be kept open to the inspection of the public at reasonable hours of any charge and certified extracts thereof shall be given to all persons including the credit agencies and apply to for the same on payment of fees as may be prescribed. 15(i). Under Sec.8(1), no suit lie against the Government or any Officer of Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made or in relation to an entry made in any record of rights or to have any such entry omitted or amended. 15(j). Under Sec.8(2), if any person is aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963) and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration. 15(k). 15(k). Under Sec.9, the Collector may either suo motu or on application is entitled to summon the record of any recording authority such as the Mandal Revenue Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer under Sec.3, 5, 5-A or 5-B 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 in respect thereof, such decision or order should be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the affected persons. 15(l). Under Sec.10, a recording authority or an appellate authority or any other officer shall, for the purpose of holding any enquiry under the Act, have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908) when trying a suit in respect of summoning and enforcing attendance of any person and examining him on oath, requiring discovery and production of documents. 15(m). Under Sec.10(2), the provisions of Sec.5 and Secs.12 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Central Act 35 of 1963) shall apply for the purposes of extension and computation of the periods prescribed in Secs.3(3), 4(1), 5(5), 5-A and 5-B of the Act. 15(n). Under Sec.10(A), necessary corrections to be incorporated pursuant to the orders of appeal or revision, as the case may be. 15(o). The Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Record of Rights in Land Regulation, 1358 Falsi (Regulation No.LVIII of 1358F) and all standing orders and any other provisions of law relating to the record of rights of land as in force in the State are repealed by virtue of Sec.13 of the Act, subject to the provisions of Sec.8 of the Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act 1891 (Act of 1891). 16. 16. After general preparation of record of rights and updating the record of rights pursuant to the notification, after preparing the draft record and the final record pending update under relevant rules and after final confirmation of record of rights in the lands in the village, the Mandal Revenue Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector (Record of Rights), the District Revenue Officer, District Collector of the District in exercise of their general powers of supervision, shall be competent, suo motu, to test and revise the entries in the confirmed record of rights, provided that no revision shall be made without giving any person whose name is entered in the record of rights, as having any interest in the land in respect of the entry relating to which the alteration is proposed of making a representation in that behalf. Before making any revision, an officer shall obtain the approval of his immediate superior officer. 16(a). Once the record of rights are entered in the revenue records, the said record of rights shall become final unless rectification is made either under Sec.3(3) after the same is revised either in appeal under Sec.5(5) or under revision under Sec.9. Under Rule-15(1) every application for rectification of an entry in a Record of Rights shall be made under Sec.3(3) of the Act to the Mandal Revenue Officer as the Mandal Revenue Officer alone is the prescribed officer under Rule-15(1). If an application is filed for rectification of the Record of Rights under Sec.3(3), it shall be accompanied by a certified copy of entry from record of rights which is sought to be rectified showing the grounds for such rectification. Then the Mandal Revenue Officer within one year may initiate proceedings for correction of any mistake in record of rights, which he discovers himself, or which is reported to him by any other revenue officer. 17. Under Sec.3(3) one year period is prescribed from the date of notification of records for rectification of the record of rights. Then the Mandal Revenue Officer within one year may initiate proceedings for correction of any mistake in record of rights, which he discovers himself, or which is reported to him by any other revenue officer. 17. Under Sec.3(3) one year period is prescribed from the date of notification of records for rectification of the record of rights. On receipt of such application within one year from the date of notification of the record of rights prepared for the first time or the record of rights made update in the village, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall hold enquiry after giving notice to the person making the application, and the persons interested in the land to which the entry relates, and any persons whose names have been entered in the record of rights as having interested in the land, any other person known or believed to be having interest in the land to which an entry relates, a notice shall be in Form-V. An officer shall consider the representation made by such persons and require them to produce documents after completion of enquiry and he shall give a decision on the application for rectification of an entry and direct such rectification of the record of rights, as may be required in accordance with such decision to be made, such application shall be disposed of within ninety days from the date of filing of an application. The record of rights shall include correction of entries in pursuance of the orders passed on the application filed for rectification and pursuant to the orders passed under Sec.5 of the Act and the acquisition made under Sec.4 of the Act. 18. As per the scheme of the Act, I am of the opinion that preparation of Record of Rights for the first time pursuant to the notification and the draft record of rights calling for the objections to the alteration and the confirmation of draft record of rights, and the sample scrutiny by the recording authority under Rule-13(2) in exercise of the general supervisory powers, suo motu to test and revise the entries in the confirmed Record of Rights is different and distinct from confirmation of final Record of Rights and issuance of the pattadar passbooks and title deeds. Once the pattadar passbook and title deed are issued, the rectification can be made only on an application within a year under Sec.3(3) either from the date of the notification in the official gazette or within one year from the date of issuance of the record of rights i.e. Pattadar passbook and title deed. If any such application is filed for rectification of entry in record of rights under Sec.3(3), the Mandal Revenue Officer shall conduct an enquiry and give decision on such application. The Mandal Revenue Officer on receipt of the application under Rule-15, within one year shall hold an enquiry under Rule-16 by issuing notice in Form-V and on examining the consent persons and the documents, shall make an order. Of course that order will be subject to revisional powers under Sec.9 of the Act. 19. Against an order passed under Sec.3(3), an appeal lies under Sec.5(5). Against every order of Mandal Revenue Officer either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such amendment, an appeal lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer within 60 days from the date of communication of the order, which of course shall be subject to provisions of Sec.9. Under Sec.9 the Collector is entitled to revise the order made under Secs.3, 5, 5A or 5B if it appears that any decision or order or proceedings of the recording authority requires to modify, reverse or remit for reconsideration after giving opportunity to the concerned persons. Admittedly, the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the instant case is not in exercise of powers under Sec.9 and it is not an order in exercise of appellate authority. Admittedly, no such appeal has been filed by Respondents Nos.4 to 8 herein against the order of the recording authority, as contemplated under Sec.3(3) r/w.Rules-15 and 16 of the Rules. 20. An appeal is maintainable under Sec.5(5) of the Act within 60 days from the date of communication of the order either revising or amending the Record of Rights. The rectification of Record of Rights is to be made within one year under Sec.3(3) of the Act. Of course, the law of limitation applies for condonation of delay. 20. An appeal is maintainable under Sec.5(5) of the Act within 60 days from the date of communication of the order either revising or amending the Record of Rights. The rectification of Record of Rights is to be made within one year under Sec.3(3) of the Act. Of course, the law of limitation applies for condonation of delay. But in the instant case, admittedly the name of the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 was entered in the relevant pahani for the year 1970-71 onwards upto 2001-02 and in fact the pattadar passbook was also issued in the name of the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3, and after death of the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3, the pattadar passbook and title deed were also issued in favour of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 who are the legal heirs of the deceased Gopathi Mallaiah by the Mandal Revenue Officer which are approved by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 21. As the record of rights issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer was approved by the Revenue Divisional Officer in view of the relevant records available and no such application is filed within the prescribed time by the unofficial respondents herein, it cannot be said that there was an application for rectification of record of rights. Admittedly, no such application was filed before the Mandal Revenue Officer under Sec.3(3). In fact an application was made before the District Collector stating that the land in question was in possession of the father of petitioners Nos.1 to 3 herein even as on the date of the said application dated 02.08.1978 and the subsequent applications filed by Respondents Nos.4 to 8 dated 06.12.1984 and 12.12.1984 and the same were returned by the District Collector, Medak vide letter L.Dis.No.A4/137/84 dated 15.09.1984 stating that there is no provision for eviction of the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 herein under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy Agriculture Lands Act 1950, and if the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 is tenant, and for taking possession of the said land from the tenant, a specific provision i.e. Sec.32 is there in Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act 1950. The said order of the Collector dated 15.09.1984 has become final and not questioned by the unofficial respondents herein. The said order of the Collector dated 15.09.1984 has become final and not questioned by the unofficial respondents herein. Therefore, it cannot be said that the representation was filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer for the first time on 27.12.2000. I am of the opinion that entertaining the said representation of Respondents Nos.4 to 8 dated 27.12.2000 is without jurisdiction and therefore, the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 25.09.2003 is without jurisdiction and non est in law. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer has not issued any notice required in Form-V under Rule-16(2) of the Rules and the parties were not examined. On the other hand, some persons who are said to have been neighbouring landowners of the land in question were examined and the decision is based on the statement said to have been given by those persons. Admittedly the land in question was in possession of the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3, and if that be so I am of the opinion that the revenue authorities cannot decide the right, title and interest of the party, and even assuming that the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 is tenant, the tenant cannot be evicted by the revenue authorities. However, it is the case of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 that they are in uninterrupted possession of the land in question from 1970 onwards and acquired the title by adverse possession also. 22. When the entries are made recording the name of the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 as pattadar and possessor from 1969 onwards, no representation was made either by the father or mother of the unofficial respondents or by themselves within the prescribed period. However, it is stated that for the first time the mother of the unofficial respondents made representation on 02.08.1978 before the Collector, but it is not known what happened to the said representation. However, the Collector returned the representations of the unofficial respondents and their mother vide the aforesaid memo dated 15.09.1984, holding that even assuming that the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 was in possession as a tenant, he cannot be evicted under Sec.98 of the Tenancy Act and the proper legal course available is under Sec.32 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950. 23. 23. In fact, Respondents Nos.4 to 7 and their mother got issued a legal notice to the father of petitioners Nos.1 to 3 herein dated 01.09.1983 stating that he has no right, title and he was illegally occupied and enjoying the said property and got his name recorded in the revenue records as owner without proper authority, and demanded to vacate from the said land. But no action has been taken after issuing the legal notice dated 01.09.1983 for eviction of the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, it cannot be said that Respondents Nos.4 to 8 have no knowledge about the entry of the name of the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor. Respondents 4 to 8 are well aware about the entry of the name of father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 as pattadar and possessor as early as in 1978, 1983 and 1984, but they have not chosen to take any action for rectification of the record under Sec.3(3) nor filed any suit for declaration of their right, title and recovery of possession. 24. Under Sec.8(2), if any person aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by an entry made in record of rights, he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter-VI of the Specific Relief Act and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration made by the Civil Court. In the instant case, the unofficial respondents are proclaiming that their father was the pattadar and possessor and that his name was erroneously deleted without there being any order of the recording authority prior to entering the name of the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 for the year 1970-71 and that they are aggrieved by such entry in the revenue record, and that the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 had no right, and if that be case, the only course open for the unofficial respondents to file a civil suit under Sec.8(2) of the Act, as admittedly they were not in possession as per their own representations made earlier. 25. 25. Even in respect of the representation made before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the unofficial respondents have categorically admitted that their mother made an application before the District Collector requesting him to evict the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 who was Batia Holder and she died in 1989 and the unofficial respondents are living in various institutions of the labourer works, and when they have approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, they came to know that the name of the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 was illegally recorded as pattadar for the pahani 1970-71 and requested to remove his name and that after the death of the father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3, Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 are in unauthorised occupation of the said land and requested to detect the mistake made by the patwari in the year 1969-70 and restore the land to the unofficial respondents. 26. I am of the opinion that the said application itself is mischievous and not maintainable, as the revenue authorities cannot either restore the possession of the land or declare the right and title of the parties. As admittedly the name of father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 was entered as pattadar in the pahanies from 1970-71 onwards and they are in continuous possession of the said land, as admitted by the unofficial respondents, and when Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 are denying the right and title of the unofficial respondents, the only course open for the unofficial respondents is to file civil suit under Sec.8(2) of the Act. 27. Under Chapter-VI of the Specific Relief Act, any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny as title of such character of right and the Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not to ask for any other relief. 28. Under Sec.6 of the Act every entry in record of rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or until it is otherwise amended in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 28. Under Sec.6 of the Act every entry in record of rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or until it is otherwise amended in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, in the instant case it is for Respondents Nos.4 to 8 to prove that the entry of the name of father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 in the Record of Rights was illegal and erroneous, that too within the specific period, otherwise the only course open to them is to file a civil suit. In fact, in the instant case, father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 was in long standing possession of the land in question. After his death, it was in possession Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 and they were also granted pattadar passbooks and title deeds. 29. As respondents Nos.4 to 8 are not only aggrieved by the possession of the land in question by Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 herein but also aggrieved for the entries in the revenue records from 1970-71 onwards including issuance of the pattadar passbooks and title deeds, it is for them to institute a civil suit against Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 herein, as Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 are denying the title of Respondents Nos.4 to 7 herein, for declaration of their right over the property in question under Sec.8(2) of the Act. The revenue authorities cannot decide the title of the respective parties even in respect of possession also. Until and unless the title of such disputed property is decided, necessary changes of the entries in the revenue records cannot be affected by the revenue officials under the Act. After obtaining appropriate declaration from the competent civil court only, the successful party can approach the revenue authorities for necessary changes of entries in the revenue records, as held by this Court in the case of K.Siddiah Naidu v District Collector, Chittoor and others 1999 (5) ALT 480. In support of the contention with regard to the rights of the parties in the case of disputed questions of right, title and possession and entries into the revenue records, the learned counsel for Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the cases of Velagupudi Satyanarayana v District Collector, Nalgonda and ors. In support of the contention with regard to the rights of the parties in the case of disputed questions of right, title and possession and entries into the revenue records, the learned counsel for Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the cases of Velagupudi Satyanarayana v District Collector, Nalgonda and ors. 2000(6) ALT 392 , V.Goutham Rao v Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagtial,Karimnagar District and another 2003 (1) ALD 681 and Sayanna (died) per LRs and others v District Collector, Mahaboobnagar District and others 2002 Supp.(10 ALD 389. 30. In the absence of any application under Sec.3(3) of the Act before the recording authority and without there being any order either revising or rejecting, the simple representation made before the Revenue Divisional Officer who is the appellate authority is not maintainable. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer which is confirmed by the Joint Collector is illegal and unsustainable. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, as prayed for. No order as to costs.