ORDER : The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the following relief : “…to issue a writ or writs or order or orders one more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings Rc.No.1176/2019/D2 dated 07.12.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent as without jurisdiction, illegal and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the proceedings Rc.No.1176/2019/D2 dated 07.12.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent ….” 2. The case of the petitioners is that one late Madu Ramulu, is the absolute owner of land admeasuring Ac.0.56 cents situated in Survey No.27/25 of Yendada Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and the same was reflected in Survey Fair Adanagal, which was prepared in the year 1956. It is further contended that, father of petitioner No.2, who is the son of the late Madu Ramulu, was earmarked with a share of Ac.0.24 cents of land in the family partition and for the said land, pattadar pass book and title deed were issued in his favour in the year 1995. The Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation had acquired a part of the above said land in an extent of 120.275 sq.mts for 100 feet wide master plan road from NH-5, Yendada Junction to Beach road via GITAM college. To that effect proceedings Rc.No.14120/2013/ACP-I/GI were issued. During the course of road widening, compound wall was demolished and to that effect compensation was paid to the father of petitioner No.2, who executed a gift deed in favour of Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation for the above said land in the year 2016 vide document No.3123 of 2016. It is the further case of the petitioners that 4th respondent made a representation in spandana programme, seeking for pattadar pass book in respect of subject land and complaint was taken up as a Revision Petition under Section 9 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) which was registered as R.P.No.33 of 2019. It is their further case that, the impugned order reflects that notice was served on the father of petitioner No.2 by respondent No.3, but in fact, the said notice was not served on him. It is the further case of the petitioners that the said Revision Petition was allowed by respondent No.2 without issuing any notice and in violation of principles of natural justice, questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. It is the further case of the petitioners that the said Revision Petition was allowed by respondent No.2 without issuing any notice and in violation of principles of natural justice, questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Respondent No.3 - Tahsildar filed counter affidavit denying the allegations inter alia, contending that, the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam is well within his jurisdiction in passing the orders impugned herein, as he is empowered U/s.9 of the Act either suo motu or on an application. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the orders passed by the Revisional Authority – cum - Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam in Rc.No.1176/2019/D2(R.P.No.33/2019) are illegal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ petition. 4. Respondent No.4 also filed counter affidavit denying the allegations, inter alia, contending that, the Joint Collector cannot invoke the revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act, after a long lapse of time, is untenable. After knowing about the acquisition of subject land in 2018, respondent No.4 made enquiry and came to know that Madu Appanna obtained pattadar pass book and title deed fraudulently in respect of the subject land and filed a petition before District Collector after obtaining material. Thereafter, the District Collector sought for a report from the Tahsildar on the subject matter, in turn forwarded the same to the Joint Collector for adjudication. The Joint Collector took up the matter as suo motu revision and passed the impugned order after following the procedure envisaged under Section 9 of the Act. Considering the material on record and after orders passed by the Joint Collector, the name of respondent No.4 is mutated in the revenue records. The limitation for filing Revision starts from the date of knowledge and not from the date of issuance of the pattadar pass book. Respondent No.4 got knowledge of the issuance of the pattadar passbook in favour of Madu Appanna in the year 2018. Hence, there is no delay as contended by the petitioners and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. To the said counter affidavit, the petitioners filed reply affidavit stating that the father of respondent No.4 sold his share to 3rd parties. To the said effect, the Encumbrance Certificate was filed along with the reply affidavit and contended that the respondents have no share and right in the subject property. Hence, prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 6. 5. To the said counter affidavit, the petitioners filed reply affidavit stating that the father of respondent No.4 sold his share to 3rd parties. To the said effect, the Encumbrance Certificate was filed along with the reply affidavit and contended that the respondents have no share and right in the subject property. Hence, prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 6. Heard Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sashibhushan, learned Government Pleader attached to the office of Advocate General and Smt. M.Siva Jyothi, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 7. Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that though pattadar pass book and title deeds were issued in favour of petitioners’ father in the year 1995, after lapse of more than 25 years, the Joint Collector has entertained the objections made by the respondent No.4 without any jurisdiction and particularly, when there is no irregularity and illegality, while issuing the pattadar pass book and title deed infavour of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that if at all the 4th respondent has any grievance, he has to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer by way of an appeal, but cannot raise any objection before Joint Collector. It is further contended that though there is no period of limitation prescribed to entertain the Revision, but it should be filed in a reasonable time. He further contended that the Joint Collector in his impugned proceedings stated about the issuance of notice on petitioners’ father but the petitioners’ father cannot sign evidencing receipt of the notice because he has some nerve problem in his right hand. Even in the gift deed executed in favour of VMC, he has not made any signature. He further contended that the impugned proceedings is against the principle of natural justice and it does not reflect about any verification of relevant material while coming to a conclusion. Even in the objections so made before the joint collector, the 4th respondent never asked to set aside the revenue entries or Pattadar Passbook, but only made a request to enter the 4th respondent’s name in revenue records. If at all the joint collector wants to entertain the same, he ought to have delegated representation to the original authority for enquiry. If at all the joint collector wants to entertain the same, he ought to have delegated representation to the original authority for enquiry. Without doing so, the Joint Collector has set aside the entries made in the revenue records and directed to incorporate the name of the 4th respondent. 8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment of Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana reported in Sarawati Bhagat v/s. Eshwaramma @ Lakshmanna (died) per L R & Ors. : 2017 (2) ALD 110 , wherein it is held as follows: “Section 27 of the Limitation Act reads a follows: 27. Extinguishments of right to property – At the determination of the period hereby limited to any person for instituting a suit for possession of any property, his right to such property shall be extinguished.” Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the judgment of this Court reported in Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Govt.of A.P. and others v/s. G. Padmavathi and others : 1999(4) ALT 209 , wherein it is held as follows: “24. The above said provisions envisage that as far as review is concerned, the authorities shall exercise their powers within 90 days. In case of revision either on application or suo motu to correct the mistake crept in though time is not mentioned but such an act of revision shall be done within reasonable time. 25. Thus the review is not an appeal. This Court which passed the order may seek to correct if any error apparent on the face of the record or order is found. It is only to correct the injustice caused. Revision is to correct any illegality or irregularity. The power of Review or Revision when has to be exercised and the limitation to the said review or Revision has been explained by this Court and other Courts in the following decisions : In the case of State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha (supra), the Supreme Court held as follows: "11. The question arises whether the Commissioner can revise an order made under Section 65 at any time. The question arises whether the Commissioner can revise an order made under Section 65 at any time. It is true that there is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 211, but it seems to us plain that this power must be exercised in reasonable time and the length of the reasonable time must be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of order which is being revised. 12. It seems to us that Section 65 itself indicates that length of the reasonable time within which the Commissioner must act under Section 211. Under Section 65 of the code if the Collector does not inform the applicant of his decision on the application within a period of three months the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted. This Section shows that a period of three months is considered ample for the Collector to make up his mind and beyond that the Legislature thinks that the matter is so urgent that permission shall be deemed to have been granted. Reading Sections 211 and 65 together it seems to us that the Commissioner must exercise his revisional powers within a few months of the order of the Collector. This is reasonable time because after the grant of the permission for building purposes the occupant is likely to spend money on starting building operations at least within a few months from the date of the permission. In this case the Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector on October 12, 1961, i.e., more than a year after the order, and it seems to us that this order was passed too late. 13. We are also of the opinion that the order of the Commissioner should be quashed on the ground that he did not give any reason as for his conclusion. We have already extracted the passage above which shows that after reciting the various contentions he baldly stated his conclusions without disclosing his reasons. In a matter of this kind the Commissioner should indicate his reasons, however briefly, so that an aggrieved party may carry the matter further if so advised”. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 9. Learned Government Pleader contended that the authority has power and no time limitation is prescribed to entertain the revision, but it should be within a reasonable time. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 9. Learned Government Pleader contended that the authority has power and no time limitation is prescribed to entertain the revision, but it should be within a reasonable time. He further contended that no doubt, the order is not based on any material, but having received notice by the petitioners, they ought to have brought to the notice of the authority all the material available with him for better adjudication of the case and prayed to pass reasonable orders in this regard. 10. Smt. M.Siva Jyothi, learned counsel for 4th respondent contended that the order impugned is sustainable, as there is no limitation prescribed in the Act and when there is no order under Section 5(3) of the Act, there is no possibility of filing appeal before Revenue Divisional Officer. After noticing the fraud played by the petitioners, respondent No.4 has made an objection before the Joint Collector and Joint Collector has rightly adjudicated and passed the order which is sustainable under law. He further contended that in the revenue records i.e., Adangal and the notice issued under Land Acquisition Act in the year 1986, the name of the father of respondent No.4 was found. Without verifying the same, the name of the petitioners’ were mutated and issued Pattadar pass book and title deeds to them. As such, there is every justification in making an objection before the Joint Collector. There are no grounds/reasons warranted to interfere with the impugned order under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 11. In support of her contention, learned counsel relied on judgment of High Court of Telangana reported in Dr.Rednam Ahi Krishna vs. Kesani Yedukondalu and contended that if at all this Court wants to interfere and remand back to the joint collector, this Court cannot and ought not examine the contentions on title, identity etc., which may ultimately arise for consideration after remand before the Joint Collector. 12. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of Kuruva Hanumanthamma v/s. State of Andhra Pradesh and five others : 2017(6) ALT 449 , wherein it is held as follows: “29. Issuing PPP/TD without passing an order ought to be treated as a serious lapse on the part of the recording authority and appropriate steps are taken by District Collector in ensuring compliance with Section 6-A (2) and to avoid burden on the statutory authorities or on the Courts. Issuing PPP/TD without passing an order ought to be treated as a serious lapse on the part of the recording authority and appropriate steps are taken by District Collector in ensuring compliance with Section 6-A (2) and to avoid burden on the statutory authorities or on the Courts. 31. Having regard to the scope of Section 9 of the Act, a person, if aggrieved against an entry made or maintained in record of rights or continued to be maintained by recording authority can file revision under Section 9 of the Act. Likewise on the same analogy the aggrieved person can file revision against the issuance of PPP/TD. The Collector is obliged by the revisional jurisdiction he enjoys to examine all the aspects namely regularity, correctness, legality or propriety in the issue of PPP/TD and pass orders on the entries in record of rights and also on the legality or otherwise of PPP/TD against which revision is made before him. This Court is of the view that by adopting the above interpretation to section 9 and Section 6-A of the Act before a litigant is compelled to work out the remedies under Section 8 of the Act, can avail the remedy within the framework of the Act by filing revision and obtain orders in this behalf. The point is answered by holding that in cases where the PPP/TD is issued either in breach of sub-section (2) of Section 6-A of the Act or otherwise particularly without an order or proceeding under Section 5 of the Act, an aggrieved party is not without remedy and legal wrong can be canvassed by fling revision under Section 9 of the Act. The remedy available under Section 8 of the Act is always independent and a party if advised, whether before filing the revision or after awaiting the outcome of revision, can work out the remedy of establishing title etc before the competent civil Court. The other remedies referred in Ratnamma case are to be understood as held in this order.” 13. A perusal of the impugned proceedings which is placed on record shows that, the Joint Collector has taken the grievance of the 4th respondent into consideration and the entries available in 1B- register has been cancelled and directed the Tahsildar to take necessary action for mutation of the name of 4th respondent in revenue records while allowing the revision. A perusal of the impugned proceedings which is placed on record shows that, the Joint Collector has taken the grievance of the 4th respondent into consideration and the entries available in 1B- register has been cancelled and directed the Tahsildar to take necessary action for mutation of the name of 4th respondent in revenue records while allowing the revision. In the impugned proceedings, he has categorically stated that the notice has been issued to both the parties and the respondent who is father of the petitioners has been called absent in all three hearings though acknowledged the receipt of the notice through Tahsildar. The impugned proceedings except stating that he has examined the record placed, no reasons have been stated while coming to a conclusion to cancel the name of father of the petitioners in revenue records. 14. The judgments relied on by both the learned counsel, no doubt there is no dispute with regard to the principles laid down therein. Though there is no limitation prescribed under the Act, but time and again, the constitutional Courts held that it should be within reasonable time. 15. The learned Government Pleader filed a memo duly enclosing the grievance petition filed by the 4th respondent in the grievance cell, which was taken on file as revision by the Joint Collector. A perusal of the petition so made by the 4th respondent shows that, the 4th respondent only sought a request to incorporate his name in the revenue records and he does not have any grievance about the issuance of pattadar pass book and title deeds in favour of the petitioners. Though there is no prayer to the said effect, the Joint Collector has entertained the revision beyond the prayer sought in the petition of the 4th respondent. Prima facie, there seems to be some title disputes between the petitioners and 4th respondent. The Joint Collector failed to verify the entire records of the subject land available with the revenue authorities before coming to a conclusion. 16. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned proceedings and remit back the matter to the 2nd respondent. 17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following direction: a) the impugned proceedings Rc.No.1176/2019/D2 dated 07.12.2019 are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent - Joint Collector for fresh adjudication. 17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following direction: a) the impugned proceedings Rc.No.1176/2019/D2 dated 07.12.2019 are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent - Joint Collector for fresh adjudication. (b) The Joint Collector shall issue notices to both the parties calling for their explanations/objections. (c) On receipt of such notices the petitioner and respondent No.4 are at liberty to submit their detailed explanations to the Joint Collector, which were raised in this writ petition with supporting material. (d) On receipt of explanation the Joint Collector is directed to give an opportunity of personal hearing to both the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and communicate the same to petitioner and respondent No.4 within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.