ORDER : Heard Sri A. Nagendra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for third respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. This writ petition is filed seeking following direction : “……to issue a Writ Order or Directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus a To call for the records pertaining to the Order Dated 18/06/2021 in ST No. 344 of 2021 C/945/2019 by confirmed the Order Dated 11/02/2021 held by the Respondent No. 2 herein and set them aside b To direct the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to continue the name of the Petitioner in the Revenue Records in respect of the land to an extent of Ac 10 Guntas in Sy No. 25/A situated at Dasnapur Village Mavala Mandal Adilabad District c To award costs By holding the action of the Respondents for cancellation of mutation as bad illegal irrational arbitrary discriminatory void violative of the Article 14, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India and pass ….” 3. According to petitioner, his grand father late Are Nana S/o. late Are Poshetty was owner of land to an extent of Acs.6.08 guntas in Survey No.25/A, Dasnapur village, Mavala mandal, Adilabad district and erroneously less extent of land was shown in the revenue records depriving valuable right to property of the petitioner on the land owned by his grand father. He therefore submitted application to the Tahsildar to correct the clerical error in the revenue records. In the year 2016, the Tahsildar was very benevolent in accepting the said request and passed orders directing correction of revenue entries to reflect land to an extent of Ac.1.10 guntas in the name of petitioner. This correction was challenged before the Appellate Authority under Section 5 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971). On constituting of the Special Tribunals, it was placed before the second respondent Special Tribunal. The Special Tribunal by order dated 11.2.2021 allowed the appeal and ordered cancellation of mutation granted in favour of the petitioner. This order was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.7143 of 2021 primarily on the ground that Special Tribunal did not give opportunity of hearing before deciding the appeal. Accordingly, the order of the Special Tribunal was set aside and matter was remanded to the Special Tribunal for fresh hearing. This order was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.7143 of 2021 primarily on the ground that Special Tribunal did not give opportunity of hearing before deciding the appeal. Accordingly, the order of the Special Tribunal was set aside and matter was remanded to the Special Tribunal for fresh hearing. Consequently, the Special Tribunal took up the matter again and passed orders on 18.6.2021 confirming the earlier decision setting aside the order of the Tahsildar. 4. According to learned counsel for petitioner, in the Pahani for the year 1968-69 erroneously less extent of land was shown in the name of grand father of petitioner as against his entitlement causing hardship and suffering to the petitioner and his family. Having come to know that an erroneous entry was made and it was purely a clerical error, petitioner applied to the Tahsildar to correct the clerical error. The Tahsildar noted that on verifying the record, he found that late Are Nana was owner of land to an extent of Ac.6.08 guntas, whereas in the Pahani for the year 1968-69 it was shown as Acs.4.39 guntas only and holding that it was a clerical error passed orders dated 12.4.2016. 5. The Special Tribunal noticed that Tahsildar undertook correction of alleged clerical error made in the year 1968-69 after more than 40 years without any justification. It was observed that land to an extent of Acs.4.38 guntas was sold out by way of registered sale deed and land to an extent of Ac.1.10 guntas was acquired by the Government in the year 1983. Thereafter, no land was left to the account of family of Are Nana, and therefore claim of the petitioner that there was erroneous entry in the revenue records, is not valid and allowed the appeal setting aside the order dated 12.4.2016. 6. Sri J. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for 3rd respondent submitted that father of petitioner sold Ac.4.38 guntas land by way of registered sale deed on 5.6.1974 and remaining land admeasuring Ac.1.10 guntas was acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and award was passed on 11.4.1983. Not satisfied with the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, Are Kashamma claiming as wife of father of petitioner filed O.P.No.208 of 1984 and the same was allowed by judgment dated 23.7.1987 granting enhancement in the compensation. Not satisfied with the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, Are Kashamma claiming as wife of father of petitioner filed O.P.No.208 of 1984 and the same was allowed by judgment dated 23.7.1987 granting enhancement in the compensation. Not satisfied with the compensation determined therein, LAAS No.1377 of 1988 was filed, wherein compensation was further enhanced. He therefore contends that no land remained with the family of Are Nana for the petitioner to claim and that respondent is trying to encroach into the land of third respondent and forming a lay out to sell house plots which is ex-facie illegal, therefore, third respondent preferred complaint challenging the decision of the Tahsildar alleging that playing fraud, petitioner is claiming extra land even though no land vested in him and under the guise of the orders of the Tahsildar dated 12.4.2016 petitioner is forming illegal lay out and selling plots causing loss to the public exchequer. This complaint was treated as an appeal and on constitution of the Special Tribunal, it was placed before the Special Tribunal. 7. Two aspects are noticed from the record placed before this Court. Firstly, according to provisions of Act 26 of 1971 once a decision is made by the Tahsildar, he becomes functus officio and he has no power or competence to review a decision made by him. An aggrieved person is entitled to go in appeal or revision. Section 5(6) of the Act vested limited power in the Tahsildar to carry out clerical errors, if any, in the pattadar passbook. Knowing fully well that he is not competent to undertake review after decision made by him, he takes recourse to the clerical error method to hold in favour of petitioner. 8. Secondly, even assuming that less extent of land was shown than the entitlement of the family of petitioner, as such entry was made in the year 1968-69, the Tahsildar could not have taken recourse to the clerical error, to carry out such error dating back to the year 1968-69. Therefore, it amounts to excess of jurisdiction, abuse of power and illegal exercise of power by the Tahsildar. Even otherwise, Tahsildar ignored the fact that on 5.6.1974 father of petitioner sold Acs.4.38 guntas and on 11.4.1983 award was passed under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 acquiring Ac.1.10 guntas and put together it comes to Acs.6.08 guntas. Therefore, it amounts to excess of jurisdiction, abuse of power and illegal exercise of power by the Tahsildar. Even otherwise, Tahsildar ignored the fact that on 5.6.1974 father of petitioner sold Acs.4.38 guntas and on 11.4.1983 award was passed under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 acquiring Ac.1.10 guntas and put together it comes to Acs.6.08 guntas. Thus, even assuming that late Are Nana was owner of Ac.6.08 guntas, after 11.4.1983 no land remained with the family i.e., 33 years before Tahsildar undertook the exercise of revising the entries in the revenue records. 9. Even assuming that there was wrong entry made in the revenue records, having regard to the fact that issue relates to the year 1968-69, it is not permissible to undertake review of entries made in the revenue records after long lapse of time. A person can assert his right over land within reasonable time. A person cannot sleep over his right, rise like a phoenix and seek indulgence of an authority of the State to shower benevolence. The sale and acquisition transactions on land of family of the petitioner were completed by 11.4.1983, father of petitioner died on 25.1.1993, almost 10 years later; and petitioner made a claim for the first time only in the year 2016, i.e., 23 years later to the death of his father. More than 40 years cannot be said as reasonable time for a person to assert his right over agricultural land. There is no satisfactory explanation offered except taking plea of clerical error of the entries made in the revenue records. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner does not dispute the factum of acquisition of land in the year 1983 but seek to contend that his father was not paid compensation, therefore, it cannot be said the land was acquired in accordance with law. 11. I do not appreciate this contention of learned counsel for petitioner for two reasons. Firstly, person by name Are Kashamma has contested the amount of compensation determined to acquire land to an extent of Ac.1.10 guntas stood in the name of father of the petitioner. At her instance compensation was enhanced. Learned counsel for petitioner sought to content that said Are Kashamma is not the wife of father of the petitioner. Firstly, person by name Are Kashamma has contested the amount of compensation determined to acquire land to an extent of Ac.1.10 guntas stood in the name of father of the petitioner. At her instance compensation was enhanced. Learned counsel for petitioner sought to content that said Are Kashamma is not the wife of father of the petitioner. Whether, Are Kashamma is the wife of father of the petitioner or a false claim was made by her to illegally secure compensation, etc., cannot be gone into by this Court in this writ petition. If petitioner disputes the claim of Are Kashamma, he ought to have availed appropriate remedy as envisaged by repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging the claim to secure compensation. Secondly, assuming that wrong person claimed compensation, it is for the petitioner to assert his right and seek to recover the compensation from that person. Insofar as State is concerned, award was passed on 11.4.1983; that award has become final; and the amount of compensation/the enhanced amount of compensation must have been already paid to the claimant therein. After selling land to an extent of Acs.4.38 guntas and acquisition of land by the State to an extent of Ac.1.10 guntas, no land remained with Are Nana family, for the petitioner to claim correction of a clerical mistake. 12. In fact, grave illegality was committed by the Tahsildar in the year 2016 in accepting plea of the petitioner, when he has no competence. The order of Tahsildar is not sustainable in law. This Tahsildar ought to have been proceeded against for such blatant illegality committed by him. 13. In the normal circumstances, the issue of maintainability of appeal decided by the Special Tribunal would have been gone into by this Court, but the Court is not inclined to set aside the order of the Special Tribunal as it will result in restoring another illegal order. It is settled principle of law that Court need not set aside an order, even if it is vitiated in law, if setting aside that order would result in restoring another illegal order. 14. In Pamshetty Jojappa (died) per LRs and others vs. State of Telangana and others, 2020 (2) ALD 495 (TS), this very issue was considered threadbear. This Court held as under : “30. Writ remedy is discretionary remedy and equitable remedy. Granting of relief depends on the facts of a given case. 14. In Pamshetty Jojappa (died) per LRs and others vs. State of Telangana and others, 2020 (2) ALD 495 (TS), this very issue was considered threadbear. This Court held as under : “30. Writ remedy is discretionary remedy and equitable remedy. Granting of relief depends on the facts of a given case. Where injustice is palpable writ Court would come to the rescue of affected person and would grant relief. It is not bound by procedural limitations/delay. However, over a period of time Court opted to self-imposed restraint on its jurisdiction. Further, even when petitioners make out a point against sustainability of an order, writ Court need not grant relief if granting of relief would result is restoring another illegal decision. It must be exercised with great caution and only in furtherance of public interest or to set right grave illegality. 31. While considering the grievance in a petition under Article 226, the writ court need not grant relief merely because the petitioner makes out a legal point. ‘It will be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point’ [RAMNIKLAL N BHUTTA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASTRA, (1997) 1 SCC 134 ]. ‘Even if a legal flaw can be electronically detected, this Court would not interfere save manifest injustice or unless a substantial question of public importance is involved [RASHPAL MALHOTRA Vs SATYA RAJPUT MRS AND ANOTHER, AIR 1987 SC 2235 and COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND ANOTHER Vs. K G S BHATT, AIR 1089 SC 1972]’. xxx 34. The following principles can be deduced from the treasure trove of precedents : (A) In exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it being discretionary and equitable remedy, Writ Court may decline to grant the relief to a petitioner, in the given facts of a case, even if legal flaw in the decision of competent authority is made out. (B) Even when there are procedural infirmities in taking a decision by statutory authority affecting the petitioner adversely, Court need not grant the relief prayed for, if setting aside the decision assailed would result in restoring another illegal decision.” 15. (B) Even when there are procedural infirmities in taking a decision by statutory authority affecting the petitioner adversely, Court need not grant the relief prayed for, if setting aside the decision assailed would result in restoring another illegal decision.” 15. Having regard to the facts noted above, it is apparent on the face of record that the decision of the Tahsildar ordering correction of the revenue records holding that there was clerical mistake in reflecting less extent of land to the account of Are Nana than his entitlement is ex facie illegal, without power or jurisdiction. Thus, setting aside the order of Special Tribunal would amount to restoring the illegal order of the Tahsildar and giving extra land to an extent of Ac.1.10 guntas to the petitioner, though no land remained to the account of the family of the petitioner after 11.3.1983. It would amount to undue enrichment. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.