ORDER : 1. This is a case where order of the Joint Collector, in allowing the Revision filed by the 3rd respondent herein, is challenged. 2. The facts, in brief, as stated in the affidavit, are as follows: The land admeasuring Ac.1-25 guntas in Survey No.798 situated at Kanukunta Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District was put to auction by the Government for non-payment of land revenue by its original owners i.e., Sri Abdul Razak and Narasimha Reddy. The father of the 3rd respondent herein Sri T.Bal Reddy, came to purchase the said land, paying the amount by way of challan in the year 1956 and, thereafter, on 30.01.1971, he executed sada bainama in favour of the petitioners father Sri P.Narsa Reddy by receiving a sale consideration of Rs.700/-. Subsequently, petitioners names were shown in the revenue records all through and the ryot passbook was also issued in favour of their father. 3. While things stood thus, the 3rd respondent, claiming himself to be the successor-in-interest of the property, based on a registered gift deed vide document No.1550, dated 19.07.1990, when approached the 2nd respondent seeking mutation of his name, as pattadar in the revenue records, such mutation was granted in his favour and a pattadar passbook was also granted. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed a Revision before the Revenue Divisional Officer, invoking Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short, the Act). The Revision came to be allowed, wherein it was recorded that the petitioners were in possession of the property and the local enquiry conducted in the village by M.R.I. also revealed that they purchased the same through a sada bainama. The respondents herein have not filed any document evidencing their right in spite of several opportunities given to them. 5. Against the said order, the 3rd respondent filed a further Revision before the Joint Collector, the 1st respondent herein, invoking Section 9 of the Act. The said Revision was allowed by ignoring the claims of the petitioners and based on the documents which are disputed, particularly ekrar batainama and the agreement dated 30.01.1971 alleged to have been executed by P.Narsa Reddy, father of the petitioners, in favour of Smt. Satyamma, mother of the 3rd respondent. The said Revision was allowed by ignoring the claims of the petitioners and based on the documents which are disputed, particularly ekrar batainama and the agreement dated 30.01.1971 alleged to have been executed by P.Narsa Reddy, father of the petitioners, in favour of Smt. Satyamma, mother of the 3rd respondent. Further, the 2nd respondent had relied on the certificate alleged to have been issued in favour of the 3rd respondent under Section 13-B of the Act on 14.12.1994. Subsequently, when the petitioners approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District, seeking copies of 13-B certificate, invoking the provisions under the Right to Information Act, 2005, vide proceedings in letter No. C/1550/2001 dated 09.12.2005, he issued the endorsement stating that, on verification of the old files in the Office, there was no 13-B certificate and the file number quoted for issuance of 13-B in favour of the 3rd respondent is not traceable. In those circumstances, the Mandal Revenue Officer has expressed his inability to provide certified copy of 13-B certificate issued vide Lr.No.A/2635/94, dated 14.12.1994. In those circumstances, the very proceedings of the 1st respondent are illegal as the 1st respondent failed to take into consideration the fact that the 2nd respondent, while mutating the name of the 3rd respondent in the revenue records and issuing the pattadar passbook, failed to issue notice to the petitioners in spite of the fact that the petitioners names continued to reflect in the revenue records. Hence, this Writ Petition on the ground that the impugned order suffers from illegality. 6. The 3rd respondent filed his detailed counter contending that his father Sri T.Bal Reddy is the auction purchaser, which fact is not in dispute, and he being the son, came to inherit the said property by virtue of the registered gift deed executed in his favour on 19.07.1990; based on the registered gift deed, the 3rd respondent was recognized as successor-in-interest of the property and the 2nd respondent has rightly recorded his name as pattadar and the petitioners have no manner of right in the property. 7. 7. The 3rd respondent also made a reference in the counter-affidavit with regard to ekrar batainama alleged to have been executed in between the petitioners father and the mother of the 3rd respondent, on 30.01.1971, and one Memorandum of Understanding executed by the petitioners father in favour of the 3rd respondent on 30.12.1993 stating that he used to cultivate the said land on lease for some years and delivered possession of the said land to him; yet, another document i.e., fresh agreement dated 26.06.1995 entered into between the 1st petitioner and 3rd respondent wherein the 1st petitioner agreed to give 4 quintals of rice per annum to the 3rd respondent. Thus, the 1st respondent had rightly taken into consideration all these documents and allowed the Revision filed by the 3rd respondent, which is impugned in this Writ Petition. 8. The reply affidavit is also filed on behalf of the petitioners contending that 13-B certificate can only be issued following Section 5-A (4) of the Act. That apart, 13-B certificate, produced by the 3rd respondent, cannot be relied on, particularly in view of the endorsement of the Mandal Revenue Officer with regard to his inability to provide a copy of the same, issued vide proceedings dated 09.12.2005. It is also further asserted that the 3rd respondent had filed O.S. No.138 of 1995 seeking perpetual injunction against the petitioners and the same came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. All this would show that the 3rd respondent has no manner of right with respect to the land in issue and, in those circumstances, prays for allowing of the Writ Petition by setting-aside the impugned proceedings dated 06.05.2005 of the 1st respondent and to restore the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 20.04.2001. 9. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana) submits that though the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus, in fact, a writ of certiorari ought to have been sought, in as much as the orders of the 1st and the 2nd respondents are under challenge, which were passed in exercise of the statutory powers as an adjudicating authority, and except for production of the records, they have nothing to add and it is for this Court to examine the validity or otherwise of those orders. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that strenuous efforts made to trace out the file relating to issuance of 13-B certificate are not successful till date. 10. Extensive arguments were advanced by Sri E.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri P. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 11. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners are to the effect that, at no point of time, neither the 3rd respondents father nor the 3rd respondent made a claim for mutating their names in the revenue records as pattadars, as, to their knowledge, the property was sold in favour of the petitioners as far back as in 1971 through a sada bainama. The learned counsel further submits that the Revision filed by the 3rd respondent itself is not maintainable against the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, which was, in fact, preferred against a Revision filed by the petitioners and, hence, there cannot be a Revision against a Revision. It is also his further submission that the petitioners continued to be in possession and the fact that the suit filed by the 3rd respondent came to be dismissed would also support the fact that the petitioners continued to be in possession and, at any rate, the 3rd respondent had failed to issue notice to the petitioners before mutating his name in the revenue records and on that simple ground, the Writ Petition is liable to be allowed. 12. The learned counsel further strenuously submits that right from 1971 till date, the petitioners names continued to reflect in the pahanies and, as a matter of fact, in the ryot passbook, which was issued prior to 1980, the petitioners names and their vendors names continued to reflect in the respective columns and, in those circumstances, the order of the 1st respondent setting-aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is liable to be declared as null and void. It is further contended by the petitioner that akrar batainama produced by the 3rd respondent is not admitted, as the same is a forged document and as such, the same cannot be relied on for the purpose of deciding the case. 13. On the other hand, Sri P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, reiterates his arguments and supports the order of the Joint Collector. 13. On the other hand, Sri P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, reiterates his arguments and supports the order of the Joint Collector. The learned counsel would contend that ekrar batainama was, in fact, produced before the Revenue Divisional Officer and before the Joint Collector. He would further contend that the Revenue Divisional Officer, who had not taken note of the registered gift deed vide document No.1550 dated 19.07.1990, executed in favour of the 3rd respondent by his father, had chosen to ignore his clients claim by giving preference to sada binama, which is impermissible in law. To support his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ande Gangaiah and others Vs. M. Krishna Reddy and others 2010 (1) ALD (3) DB. 14. Having considered the respective submissions, at the outset, it may be stated that discharge of functions by the respective authorities is totally unsatisfactory in all respects. The record produced by the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as the Joint Collector, by itself, does not throw any light much less help, in any manner, to dispose of the case, on merits. In the facts of the present case, notwithstanding the improper maintenance of the record by the respondent authorities, this Court had to resolve the controversy between the parties by taking efforts which could have been avoided if proper procedure would have been followed by the respective authorities. However, from the very material produced before this Court and from the nature of the disputes raised, the undisputed facts culled out are that: (1) The 3rd respondents father came to purchase the property in open auction in the year 1956 and, for some reason or the other, his name is not recorded in the revenue records, at any point of time. (2) For the first time in 1990, the 3rd respondent produced the registered gift deed, executed in his favour by his father, and sought mutation of his name as pattadar in the revenue records and for issuance of pattadar passbook, which was, in fact, granted by the Mandal Revenue Officer; (3) On 14.012.1984, 13-B Certificate was issued in favour of the 3rd respondent by regularizing the purchase of the land by the 3rd respondents father in the auction in 1959 in which the names of the original land owners Sri Abdul Rajak and Sri Narasimha Reddy were mentioned. (4) The claim of the petitioners is based on an un-registered sada bainama, dated 30.01.1971; (5) The name of the petitioners and their father were recorded in the occupation column i.e., column No.16 in the revenue records, and continued to be shown in the occupation column all through; (6) The 3rd respondent does not deny the claim of the petitioners that their names were recorded in the revenue records and to the extent of the same being shown in the occupation column; and (7) The suit filed by the 3rd respondent in O.S. No.138 of 1995 seeking perpetual injunction was dismissed confirming the possession of the petitioners in the land; 15. At the outset, it may be noted that, for some reason or the other, the 3rd respondent came to be granted 13-B certificate in which the transaction set out is the purchase of the land by the 3rd respondents father in auction. As the sale certificate was issued by the Sale Officer, there was really no reason for regularizing the same under Section 5A of the Act. It may be further noted that the 3rd respondent was granted pattadar passbook in his favour and also his name was entered in the revenue records as successor-in-interest of the property, on the basis of the registered gift deed. The claim of the 3rd respondent was, in other words, came to be considered in terms of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act and not on the basis of 13-B certificate. 16. The claim of the 3rd respondent was, in other words, came to be considered in terms of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act and not on the basis of 13-B certificate. 16. In those circumstances, granting of 13-B certificate in favour of the 3rd respondent is neither here nor there and it is of no consequence when one considers that the 3rd respondent was also granted pattadar passbook and his name was mutated as successor-in-interest of his late father T.Bal Reddy, who was, admittedly, the purchaser of the property in public auction. If at all the petitioners were aggrieved with respect to the mutation of the name of 3rd respondent in the revenue records and grant of pattadar passbook in his favour, they could have only invoked and preferred an Appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer disposed of the Revision alleged to have been filed by the petitioners in terms of Section 9 of the Act. It may be noted that, under Section 9 of the Act, the Revenue Divisional Officer has no revisionary power and the said power exclusively vests with the Collector or the Joint Collector. Assuming that the petitioners had invoked Section 5(3) of the Act, their claim would have been limited to the extent of their possession not being disturbed on account of the fact that they continued to be in possession of the property. 17. In the light of the admitted facts that the petitioners are in possession and the entries in the revenue records with respect to their possession not being altered, in any manner, they cannot have any grievance so far as granting of succession rights in favour of the 3rd respondent, as consideration of the 3rd respondents claim is based on the gift deed, which is traceable to Section 4 of the Act. If one treats the exercise of the power of Revenue Divisional Officer is traceable to Section 5(3) of the Act, though the Revenue Divisional Officer mentioned it as Section 9 of the Act, the 1st respondent Joint Collector is entitled to revise the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in terms of Section 9 of the Act. If one treats the exercise of the power of Revenue Divisional Officer is traceable to Section 5(3) of the Act, though the Revenue Divisional Officer mentioned it as Section 9 of the Act, the 1st respondent Joint Collector is entitled to revise the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in terms of Section 9 of the Act. Consideration of the 3rd respondents claim before the Mandal Revenue Officer/ Revenue Divisional Officer would be in relation to their exercise of the power under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act and not the power under Section 5-A of the Act. Even, in that view of the matter, filing a Revision by the petitioners before the Revenue Divisional Officer, invoking Section 5-B of the Act, is misconceived. 18. Be that as it may, the Mandal Revenue Officer had considered the rights of the 3rd respondent as traceable to Sections 4 and 5 of the Act and, based on the gift deed, without altering or disturbing the rights of the petitioners with respect to their possession, had granted mutation and pattadar passbook in their favour. The Revenue Divisional Officer, though had noted the fact of gift in favour of the 3rd respondent, chose to ignore the same without any reason and reversed the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer by giving preference to sada bainama dated 30.01.1971. So far as the reliance on sada bainama, at the outset, it may be noted that the petitioners, at no point of time, had sought to regularize the alleged sada bainama by invoking Section 5-A of the Act. 19. This could not have been done by the Revenue Divisional Officer vis-a-vis the claim of the petitioners based on the sada bainama and in view of the claim of the 3rd respondent based on a registered gift deed and the fact that his father was, admittedly, original owner of the land in dispute, the preference ought to have been given to the registered gift deed rather than sada bainama in considering the claims under Section 4 of the Act. 20. The ratio laid down by the Division Bench referred to by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent is also to the same effect. A reference can be made to Para 8 of the judgment, which reads as follows: “8. 20. The ratio laid down by the Division Bench referred to by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent is also to the same effect. A reference can be made to Para 8 of the judgment, which reads as follows: “8. Having regard to nature of proceedings, regarding the entries in the revenue records, the title as contemplated under the laws plays a vital role and will have a pivotal bearing on the claims and ultimate conclusion to be drawn. As long as there is no enforceable right, it is not open for the appellants either to justify their claim or resist that of the others. The title, as validly conferred would be the factor to be weighed with and not mere entries. Even for any litigant, trying to raise a dispute, there should be a sustainable right which can be carried with safely for the purpose of revenue proceedings. As it is, mere agreement would not confer any right as per the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, nor can wield any resistance to or against a title under the registered transferred deeds, by or from the same vendor or predecessor in title. It cannot even be called a litigious claim or right of whatsoever nature.” 21. Further, recording of the petitioners names in the revenue records is, admittedly, against column No.16 which is relatable to recording of cultivation/the cultivators name. The 3rd respondent is not disputing about the factum of the petitioners being cultivators. The documents i.e., ekrar batainama and the agreement dated 26.06.1995, on which the 3rd respondent relies, are to the effect of the 3rd respondent recognizing the petitioners as possessors in the capacity of tenants. 22. Though an argument was sought to be advanced by Sri E. Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, stating that his clients have perfected the right over the property, invoking the concept of adverse possession, the same was rightly given up by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent having regard to the futility of the same. 23. In these circumstances, leaving it open to the petitioners to work out their remedies, if any, with respect to the title to the property, particularly based on the alleged sada bainama, so far as the challenge to the impugned proceedings is concerned, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. 24. 23. In these circumstances, leaving it open to the petitioners to work out their remedies, if any, with respect to the title to the property, particularly based on the alleged sada bainama, so far as the challenge to the impugned proceedings is concerned, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. 24. In consequence, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand dismissed.