JUDGMENT : In this writ petition, the memo dated 10.12.2011 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District whereunder a direction was issued to incorporate the name of one Yatham Pochayya, S/o. Jangaiah in the possession column of Pahani for the year 1999-2000 against Survey No.63 admeasuring Ac.8.06 gts and odd at Nadergul village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy. 2. As per the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner is the owner of the land in Sy.No.63/A over an extent of Ac.8.08 gts., of Nadergul village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the same is the petitioner’s ancestral property. An extent of Ac.4.04 gts in Sy.No.63/AA and an extent of Ac.4.04 gts in Sy.No.63/E was the land acquired by the petitioner by purchase vide registered sale deed dated 23.8.1999. The petitioner had filed O.S.No.788 of 1999 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, East and North, Ranga Reddy District seeking a perpetual injunction against the respondents 3 to 7 in the writ petition who are the legal heirs of Yatham Pochaiah, S/o. Jangaiah and an interim injunction was granted on 20.7.1999. Another suit O.S.No.1293 of 2001 was filed in respect of the properties purchased by the petitioner and initially an interim injunction was granted on 5.11.2011, but the same was vacated on 31.3.2003. However, the injunction was restored vide orders in C.M.A.No.91 of 2003 on 3.2.2005. As a matter of fact, suits were decreed on 30.9.2011. In the course of trial of the suits, the respondents produced the memo of Pahani for the year 19992000 showing the name of Yatham Pochaiah in possession column as a common evidence vide Ex.B.11 in both O.S.Nos.788 of 1999 and 1293 of 2001. Even as per the certified copy of Pahani dated 22.12.2011 for the year 1999-2000, petitioner’s name appears as possessor over an extent of Ac.16.16 gts in Sy.Nos.63/A, 63/AA and 63/E. The memo was produced in O.S.No.788 of 1999 and O.S.No.1293 of 2001. For the first time, petitioner came to be aware of the said memo and as the same is being used as evidence in Civil proceedings, petitioner is constrained to approach this Court questioning the said memo. It is stated that the pattadar pass book No.861 was issued in favour of the petitioner and a copy of the same was filed before this Court. 3. It is stated that the pattadar pass book No.861 was issued in favour of the petitioner and a copy of the same was filed before this Court. 3. In the writ petition the memo is assailed on the following grounds: a) That principles of natural justice not complied as such it is a nullity. b) Under Section 3(3) of Record of Rights Act, 1971, power to rectify entry in record is once year from the date of notification under sub-section 2 of Section 3 as such it is without jurisdiction. c) No enquiry as contemplated by law is conducted. d) That the exercise of power is highly belated. e) That the jurisdictional fact is neither determined prior to exercise of power and as such it is a clear case of non application of mind, further it apparently discloses lack of bona fides. f) That the said act is without authority of law. g) That when Civil Court is already seized of the matter, the unofficial respondent in collusion with the Official respondent, interfered with the administration of justice, despite the fact that the impugned memo was suspended h) That application of Yatham Pochaiah lacks bona fides and is clearly a case of suppression of material facts, as such it is a clear case of fraud. 4. On 16.6.2011 a counter-affidavit sworn by Yatham Anjaiah, S/o. late Yatham Pochaiah was filed on behalf of the respondents 3 to 7. It has been stated that the petitioner has got his name incorporated in the year 1999-2000 by playing fraud under the possessor column and issuance of pattadar pass book was denied. It is further stated that late Pochaiah’s name has been entered into revenue records after conducting enquiry by the Revenue Inspector and Mandal Revenue Officer has issued the impugned memo incorporating the name of his father. Writ petition is not maintainable as there is an alternative remedy of filing appeal before the appellate authority available to the petitioner. The respondents claim that they have acquired the land of Ac.8.28 gts in Sy.No.63/A along with the land of Srisailajm, Hanumanth Rao, S/o. Gurnnaiah by way of succession and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. It is further stated that late Pochaiah got lease deed (Koulnama) from one late A. Gunnaiah over the above said land and after the death of Pochaiah himself and his brothers are in possession. It is further stated that late Pochaiah got lease deed (Koulnama) from one late A. Gunnaiah over the above said land and after the death of Pochaiah himself and his brothers are in possession. In para No.8 of the counter, the details with respect to Civil Court proceedings, proceedings before R.D.O and the respondents filing W.P.No.2040 of 2011 against the proceedings dated 4.1.2011 issued by R.D.O 3rd respondent (with respect to conversion of agricultural land into non agricultural land) were all mentioned. Those details are all not necessary for the purpose of deciding the issue raised in the writ petition either for the reason the various events mentioned are all subsequent to the date of impugned memo or they are unrelated to validity or otherwise of the impugned memo. 5. On behalf of the first respondent a counter-affidavit was filed on 25.4.2013 sworn by one K. Chandra Reddy, S/o. late Ramreddy, Deputy Collector and Tahasildar, Saroornagar Mandal whereunder it has been stated that file No.B/9635/2001 is relating to another subject pertaining to Meerpet village and with that reference, there is no memo bearing No.B/9635/2001 dated 10.12.2001. It is also stated that the land in Sy.No.63/A over an extent of Ac.8.08 gts is recorded in the name of Kallem Penta Reddy as pattadar and possessor and at present the part of the land is made into plots and remaining land is vacant. 6. By order dated 30.4.2013, the District Collector was directed by this Court noticing the averment that the file No.B/9635/2001 is some other subject and Meerpet is not pertaining to the impugned memo and this Court directed enquiry to be conducted. The District Collector filed through Government Pleader the enquiry report dated 11.6.2013. In the report, it has been categorically stated that there is a file bearing No.B/9635/2001 on Meerpet village but not on Nadergul village. As a matter of fact when the records were called for, a 5 pages note file bearing No.B/9635/2001 were produced before this Court. A perusal of the note file would reveal the discussion is with respect to Sy.Nos.12 and 17 of Meerpet village and it is with respect to grave yard. In other words file No.B/9635/2001 does not relate to the Nadergul village or to the Sy.No.63 of Nadergul village. 7. A perusal of the note file would reveal the discussion is with respect to Sy.Nos.12 and 17 of Meerpet village and it is with respect to grave yard. In other words file No.B/9635/2001 does not relate to the Nadergul village or to the Sy.No.63 of Nadergul village. 7. At this stage, I may refer that though the District Collector was directed to conduct an enquiry and submit a categorical report with respect to true facts, the Collector’s report is totally unsatisfactory. At one place, Collector’s report states that the File No.9635/2001 relates to Nadergul is in existence and the memo issued must have been in existence. But the file does not contain the same. As can be seen from the report, District Collector does not appear to have called and enquired the then M.R.O who is responsible for issuing the impugned memo and on what basis the said memo had come into existence. Except doing this crucial aspect unfortunately the Collector had conducted enquiry with respect to whether there was a file No.B/9635/2001 existing or not. This only goes to show the haphazard manner in which the official proceedings are being conducted and the supervision the higher authorities are supposed to be having over the proceedings emanating from their offices. 8. Be that as it may, the controversy in issue with respect to the impugned memo can be resolved by reference to the provisions of the A.P Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass books Act, 1971 (for short, “the Act”). It is the specific contention of the petitioner that for the year 1999-2000, the petitioner’s name was recorded as possessor and pattadar in the Pahani and before issuance of the impugned memo, there was no notice issued to him, there was no enquiry conducted by the 1st respondent. Further issuance of memo like the impugned memo is alien to the provisions of the Act. If at all for whatever reason, the changes are to be effected in the revenue records, the provisions governing the same are set out in the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder. Further issuance of memo like the impugned memo is alien to the provisions of the Act. If at all for whatever reason, the changes are to be effected in the revenue records, the provisions governing the same are set out in the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder. The fact that the petitioner’s name was appearing in the revenue records for the year 1999-2000 and that he was issued pattadar pass books with respect to Sy.No.63/A, his name was appearing was not denied by any of the respondents and as a matter of fact records produced before the Court reveal the same. The counter-affidavits filed either by the 1st respondent or by other respondents do not state whether any notice was issued to the petitioner before issuance of the impugned memo. At this stage, it is useful to refer the relevant provisions of the Act:- “Section 2(6) "occupant" means a person in actual possession of land, other than a tenant or a usufructuary mortgagee. Section 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; Section 2(6-b) [title deed and pass book] means the title deed and pass book issued under Section 6-A;] Section 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. Section 3 Preparation and updating of record of rights in all lands. Section 3 Preparation and updating of record of rights in all lands. (1) As soon as may be after the commencement of this Act any area, there shall be 1 [prepared and brought up to date from time to time, by the recording authority] in such manner, and thereafter maintained in such form as may be prescribed, a record of mights in all lands in every village in that area and such record of rights shall contain the following particulars, namely.-- (a) the names of all persons who are owners, pattadars, mortgagees occupants or tenants of lands; (b) the nature and extent of the respective rights or interest of such persons and the conditions or liabilities if any, attaching thereto; (c) the rent, revenue or other amount, if any, payable by, or to any of such persons; (d) such other particulars as may be prescribed. (2) When in respect of any village the preparation of the record of rights referred to in sub-section (1) is completed; the fact of such completion shall be notified in the [Andhra Pradesh Gazette or the District Gazette] and in such other manner as may be prescribed. (3) Any person affected by an entry in such record of right may, within a period of one year from date of the notification referred to in sub-section (2), apply, for rectification of the entry to such officer as may be prescribed. The said officer may, after such inquiry as may be prescribed, give his decision on such application and direct the rectification of the record of rights in accordance with such decision which shall subject to the provisions of Section 9, be final.” 9. As stated supra, it is not in dispute that for the year 1999-2000, the petitioner’s name was appearing as pattadar as well as occupant in the revenue records. If any person is affected by an entry in the record of rights, he is required to apply for rectification to the prescribed officer and such application should be made within a period of one year from the date of notification. Further, Sections 4 and 5 of the Act deals with acquisition of new rights and the procedure for intimation and effecting necessary changes in the record of rights. Further, Sections 4 and 5 of the Act deals with acquisition of new rights and the procedure for intimation and effecting necessary changes in the record of rights. The procedure for making application and the manner of the same are set out in Rules 15 to 17 of the A.P Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act and Rules, 1971 (for short, “the Rules”) which contemplate holding of an enquiry after giving notice to any person referred to in the application as having right or interest and also to any person whose name has been entered in the record as having interest in the land and such notice shall be in Form No.5 as prescribed under the Rules. After enquiry, final orders would be passed which orders would be subject to appeal and revision under the Act. Admittedly, in the present case, assuming for the sake of argument that there is a power to issue the memo like the one which has been issued the procedure contemplated under the Act and Rules have been violated more in the breach than in practice. The impugned memo reads as under:- "GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (REVENUE DEPARRMENT) OFFICE OF THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, SAROORNAGAR, R.R. DISTRICT No.B/9635/2001 Dated: 10.1.2001. :: MEMO :: Sub:- ROR – Saroornagar (M) – Nadergul (V) – Sy.No.63 – Request for incorporation of name in possession column of Pahani – A/o. Sri Y. Pochaiah – Instructions issued – Reg. Ref:- Additional Revenue Inspector Saroornagar report dated 23.10.2001. * * * * * * * Through the reference cited the Additional Revenue Inspector of this Office has conducted spot inspection and enquiry in to the petition filed by Pochaiah and reported that Sri Yatham Pochaiah, S/o. Jangaiah is in possession and occupation over an area of Ac.8.06 ½ Gts., in Sy.No.63 situated at Nadergul Village and being used for dry cultivation. Therefore, the Additional Revenue Inspector has recommended for incorporate the name of Sri Yatham Pochaiah, S/o. Jangaiah against Sy.No.63 admeasuring Ac.8.06 ½ Gts., situated at Nadergul village and report compliance. Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar. To The Village Assistant, Nadergul.” 10. Therefore, the Additional Revenue Inspector has recommended for incorporate the name of Sri Yatham Pochaiah, S/o. Jangaiah against Sy.No.63 admeasuring Ac.8.06 ½ Gts., situated at Nadergul village and report compliance. Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar. To The Village Assistant, Nadergul.” 10. If entries in the revenue records are altered in the manner as set out above, the same would create havoc in the society and leaving citizen’s property rights to the mercy of revenue authorities depriving them of their valuable properties’ rights guaranteed under Article 300(a) of the Constitution of India. This case is a classic example inasmuch as an innocuous memo of the nature which has no backing in the official records and which cannot be tried to any statutory provision or rule alleged to have been issued based on a Revenue Inspector’s enquiry by a Mandal Revenue Officer has caused and created litigation by way of two suits and various Interlocutory Applications, Revisions and Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner by bringing to the notice of the Court the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 Supreme court Cases 243) passionatelyurges to initiate appropriate action against the officers responsible for issuance of the impugned memo in utter disregard and in flaggerent violation of the prescribed procedures putting the petitioner to the agony and expenditure of fighting litigation to protect his valuable rights. 12. From the facts on record, this cannot be taken as a case of an officer committing a bonafide error and mistake which can be rectified in an appeal inasmuch as there is a deliberate creating of a document which could cause enormous loss and damage to others. Such conduct is highly to be deprecated and a time has come where the courts need to show no lenience on the erring officials as the generosity shown would undermine the confidence of the general public in the very concept of rule of law. 13. In the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court had directed that the party who has been put to irreparable loss and mental agony should be compensated and the compensation amount should be paid by the State at the first instance and thereafter the same should be recovered from the officers responsible for the same. I am of the considered opinion this is a fit case where disciplinary action should be initiated against the Mandal Revenue Officer and other connected officers who are responsible for issuance of the said memo without following due procedure. 14. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned memo bearing No.B/9635/2001 dated 10.12.2001 issued by the 2nd respondent. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.