ORDER : This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief : “To issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the impugned Endorsement in Proc.L.P.No.169/2015-A dated 03.6.2015 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the orders passed in W.P.No.13372 of 2015 dated 30.04.2015 and set-aside the same in the interest of justice and equity and consequently direct the respondents to rectify the revenue records in pursuance of the representations of the petitioners dated 15.12.2014 and 20.04.2015.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners are residents of Anchulavaripally Village, Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District, eking their livelihood by doing agricultural works and raising crops. The petitioners father and grandfathers were also in possession of the land in Sy.Nos.342/1, 2,3 since long time. 3. The first petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of land of an extent of Ac.1-98 cents. The fourth respondent – Tahsildar issued Pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the first petitioner vide Patta No.1504 to an extent of Ac.1-98 cents by mentioning survey numbers as Sy.Nos.280/22 and 280/23 of Nemalipuri Village, Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District. As the first petitioner’s forefathers were put in possession in the land in Sy.No.342/1,2,3, the first petitioner submitted representations dated 15.12.2014 and 20.04.2015 to the fourth respondent for rectification of the survey number i.e to mention Sy.Nos.342/1,2,3 instead of Sy.Nos.282/22 & 280/23. 4. The second petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of land of an extent of Ac.0-30 cents in Sy.No.350/3A and Ac.1-00 cents in Sy.No.32/1B, totalling to an extent of Ac.1-30 cents in Nemalipuri Village. The fourth respondent issued D-Form Patta on 25.10.1987 vide Patta No.47/87 in favour of the second respondent considering his possession and enjoyment over the said land for more than 40 years. While so, one Nidumukkala Ramesh threatened to dispossess the second petitioner from his land on the ground that the fourth respondent issued patta in favour of Nidumukkala Ramesh. Thereupon, the second petitioner made representations dated 15.12.2014 and 20.04.2015 to the fourth respondent to protect his right over the land by cancelling patta granted in favour of Ramesh and requested to fix boundaries by conducting survey and requested to issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the said land. 5. Thereupon, the second petitioner made representations dated 15.12.2014 and 20.04.2015 to the fourth respondent to protect his right over the land by cancelling patta granted in favour of Ramesh and requested to fix boundaries by conducting survey and requested to issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the said land. 5. The fourth respondent issued D-Form Patta vide DKT No.232/1404/F on 03.09.1994 in favour of the third petitioner to an extent of Ac.1-28 cents in Sy.No.342/1 situated at Nemalipuri Village, Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District. Pattadar passbooks and title deeds vide Patta No.353 were also issued in the year 1997 in favour of the third petitioner. It is submitted that, though DKT patta was issued in favour of the third petitioner for the land admeasuring Ac.1-28 cents in Sy.No.342/1, the third petitioner is in possession of the land in Ac.0-28 cents in Sy.No.342/3 and Ac.1-00 cents in Sy.No.342/1. The report of the Surveyor dated 16.12.2009 also establishes that the third petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the land in Sy.Nos.342/3 and 342/1. Hence, the third petitioner made a representation on 20.04.2015 to the fourth respondent with a request to rectify the survey numbers and issue fresh pattadar passbooks and title deeds. 6. For the sake of convenience, details viz., name of the petitioner, extent of the land and survey number which the petitioner is in actual possession, extent and survey number granted by the Tahsildar, dates of representations submitted by the petitioners and the purpose for which the representations are submitted are tabulated hereunder: (A) (B) (C) (D) Name of the Petitioner Extent of land and Survey number which the petitioner is in actual possession Extent and Survey number granted by Respondent No.4/ Tahsildar Dates of Representations submitted and purpose for which it was submitted Anchula Venkaiah (P-1) Ac.1-98 cents Sy.Nos.342/1,2,3 Ac.1-98 cents; Patta No.1504 Sy.Nos.280/22, 280/23 15.12.2014; 20.04.2015 Requesting for rectification of survey numbers Anchula Krishna Murthy (P-2) Ac.1-30 cents Ac.0-30 cents in Sy.No.350/3A; Ac.1-00 cents in Sy.No.32/1B D-Form Patta dated 25.10.1987 was granted vide Patta No.47/87 15.12.2014; 20.04.2015 Requesting to action as, one Ramesh is trying to dispossess from the said land Kadiam Venkateswar lu (P-3) Ac.0-28 cents Sy.No.342/3 Ac.1-00 in Sy.No.343/2A Total Ac.1-28 cts D-Form Patta was granted vide DKT No.232/1404/F on 03.09.1994 Ac.1-28 cents in Sy.No.342/1 20.04.2015 Requesting for rectification of survey numbers 7. It is further contended that, the petitioners herein filed W.P.No.13372 of 2015 before this Court, questioning the action of the official respondents in not taking any action on the representations dated 15.12.2014 and 20.04.2015, wherein, the Court disposed of the said writ petition on 30.04.2015 directing the respondents to dispose of the representations dated 15.12.2014 and 20.04.2015 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Thereafter, petitioners informed the respondents about disposal of W.P.No.13372 of 2015 dated 30.04.2015 and the direction issued therein. Though the same was received by the respondents, no notice was issued to the petitioners and without conducting any enquiry on the representations dated 15.12.2014 and 20.04.2015, the fourth respondent issued Endorsement in L.P.No.169/2015-A dated 03.06.2015 stating that Patta No.146134 in Account No.1657 has been issued for the land of an extent of Ac.3-47 cents in Sy.No.342/3 in favour of Nidumukkala Ramesh and boundaries have been fixed by the Deputy Surveyor on 20.03.2015 and thus, the fourth respondent did not accept the request of these petitioners. Hence, the petitioners sought to declare the impugned Endorsement in Proc. L.P.No.169/2015-A dated 03.06.2015 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the orders passed in W.P.No.13372 of 2015 dated 30.04.2015 and set-aside the same, while requesting to direct the respondents to rectify the revenue records in pursuance of the representations dated 15.12.2014 and 20.04.2015. 8. No counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. 9. During hearing, Sri Ch. Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that, the land which is in the possession of the petitioners has to be assigned to them. Instead of assigning the same to the petitioners, the fourth respondent assigned land in different survey numbers, which is not in their possession, without verifying the actual enjoyment of the property. Despite representations submitted by the petitioners, no action was taken, but only when a direction was issued by the Court in W.P.No.13372 of 2015 dated 30.04.2015, the fourth respondent issued impugned endorsement, contrary to the direction issued by the Court without verifying the actual possession and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners before passing any order, thereby, the impugned endorsement is in violation of principles of natural justice and requested to declare the order as illegal and arbitrary, while issuing consequential direction as claimed in the writ petition. 10. 10. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contended that, when Pattas were granted in favour of these petitioners as mentioned in Column (c) of the table, by issuing DKT Patta or D-Form Patta, revenue records must reflect the same survey number and extent, thereby, question of rectification of entries in the revenue records declaring the proceedings as illegal and arbitrary does not arise, unless the pattas are granted in their favour for particular survey number which they are claiming to be in possession of the property. More so, the land which the petitioners are claiming is already assigned to one Nidumukkala Ramesh long back and he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. More so, Nidumukkala Ramesh is not a party to the present writ petition. Hence, writ of mandamus cannot be issued, since the petitioners had no existing legally enforceable right in the property in Sy.Nos.342/1,2,3, question of considering their demand does not arise and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 11. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the point that needs to be answered by this Court is: “Whether impugned Endorsement in Proc. L.P.No.169/2015-A dated 03.06.2015 be declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and whether a consequential direction be issued to rectify the revenue records incorporating the survey number(s), which the petitioners are claiming to be in possession and enjoyment?” POINT : 12. As narrated above, the first petitioner is allegedly in possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac.1-98 cents in Sy.No.342/1,2,3 of Nemalipuri Village, Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District, but D-Form patta was issued with respect to Sy.Nos.280/22 & 280/23. 13. Whereas, the second petitioner is allegedly in possession and enjoyment of the land of the admeasuring Ac.1-30 cents in Sy.No.342/1,2,3 of Nemalipuri Village, Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District, but D-Form patta was issued with respect to Sy.Nos.350/3A and 32/1B. 14. Similarly, the third petitioner is allegedly in possession and enjoyment of the land of the admeasuring Ac.1-28 cents in Sy.Nos.342/3 & 343/2A of Nemalipuri Village, Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District, but D-Form patta was granted in different survey number i.e. Sy.No.342/1. 15. Pattadar pass book and title deed was issued to the first petitioner for the land admeasuring Ac.1-98 cents mentioning Sy.Nos.280/22 & 280/23 in Nemalipuri Village. 15. Pattadar pass book and title deed was issued to the first petitioner for the land admeasuring Ac.1-98 cents mentioning Sy.Nos.280/22 & 280/23 in Nemalipuri Village. On noticing the errors crept in the patta with regard to survey numbers, the first petitioner made representations dated 15.12.2014 and 20.04.2015 to the fourth respondent requesting to rectify the error crept in the patta with regard to survey numbers. The second petitioner was granted D-Form Patta for the land admeasuring Ac.1-30 cents in Sy.Nos.350/3A & 32/1B, whereas, he is in possession of Sy.No.342/1,2,3. The second petitioner submitted representations dated 15.12.2014 and 20.04.2015 to the fourth respondent on the ground that one Nidumukkala Ramesh is threatening to dispossess him from his property and requested to take action. The third petitioner was issued DKT patta for the land admeasuring Ac.1-28 cents in Sy.No.342/1, but he is in possession of the land in Sy.Nos.342/3 and 343/2A. Hence, the third petitioner also made representation dated 20.04.2015 to the fourth respondent requesting to rectify the errors crept in the patta with regard to survey numbers. Since the fourth respondent did not take any action on the representations made by the petitioners, the petitioners filed W.P.No.13372 of 2015 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and obtained an order directing the respondents to dispose of the representations of the petitioners within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 16. Based on the direction issued in W.P.No.13372 of 2015 dated 30.04.2015, the impugned endorsement dated 03.06.2015 was issued stating the land admeasuring Ac.3-47 cents in Sy.No.342/3 was assigned to Nidumukkala Ramesh s/o Venkateswarlu with A/c No.1657 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and rejected the request of these petitioners. 17. The main contention of these petitioners is that, the land was assigned in different survey numbers, which is not in their possession. When patta was granted in favour of the petitioners, unless it is cancelled and issued a different patta for the land which is in their possession, the revenue records cannot be rectified, since the revenue records were assigned to the petitioners with particular survey number. Therefore, question of rectifying the revenue records does not arise. Apart from that, the petitioners are claiming to be in possession of land in Sy.Nos.342/3 which is already assigned to Nidumukkala Ramesh under ex-serviceman quota by issuing DKT Patta. 18. Therefore, question of rectifying the revenue records does not arise. Apart from that, the petitioners are claiming to be in possession of land in Sy.Nos.342/3 which is already assigned to Nidumukkala Ramesh under ex-serviceman quota by issuing DKT Patta. 18. As seen from the allegations made in the writ affidavit filed along with the writ petition, the first petitioner is claiming to be in possession of land of an extent of Ac.1-98 cents in Sy.No.342/1,2,3, whereas, Ac.3-47 cents in Sy.no.342/3 was assigned to Nidumukkala Ramesh under ex-serviceman quota. Similarly, the second petitioner is assigned land of Ac.1-30 cents in Sy.Nos.350/3A and 32/1B respectively and he is claiming to be in possession in Sy.No.342/1,2,3. Similarly, the third petitioner was assigned land in Sy.No.342/1, but claiming to be in possession in Sy.No.342/3 and Sy.No.343/2A. It is not known as to what is the total extent of land in different survey numbers, more particularly, the land in Sy.Nos.342/1,2,3. Unless the land assigned to Nidumukkala Ramesh is identified on ground and patta if any is granted in favour of the petitioners for the land in their possession, the request of these petitioners cannot be acceded to. Hence, the order of the Tahsildar – fourth respondent is bereft of any details and the same cannot be sustained under law. 19. Representation dated 15.12.2014 is submitted to the fourth respondent only to rectify the survey numbers in his pattadar passbooks and title deeds and take appropriate action from the alleged high-handed action of Nidumukkala Ramesh, who is not a party to the present proceedings. Whereas, in the later representation dated 20.04.2015, the petitioners along with others made a totally different request which includes cancellation of patta issued in the name of said Nidumukkala Ramesh. Both the requests made in the representations are not consistent with one another and in the absence of said Nidumukkala Ramesh as a party to the present writ petition, a direction cannot be issued for cancellation of patta issued in favour of the fourth respondent. 20. Added to that, the first part of the prayer is to declare the Endorsement in Proc.L.P.No.169/2015-A dated 03.6.2015 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. Whereas, with regard to the second part of the prayer is concerned, the prayer is to rectify the entries in the revenue records in pursuance of the representations dated 15.12.2014 and 20.04.2015. Added to that, the first part of the prayer is to declare the Endorsement in Proc.L.P.No.169/2015-A dated 03.6.2015 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. Whereas, with regard to the second part of the prayer is concerned, the prayer is to rectify the entries in the revenue records in pursuance of the representations dated 15.12.2014 and 20.04.2015. So far as the first part is concerned, no notice is required to be issued before considering the representations, since it is not under any statute. But, for cancellation of patta issued in favour of said Nidumukkala Ramesh is concerned, the power is vested on the concerned authorities under B.S.O 15(18)(1), which reads as follows: "(1) the order of the authority making the assignment, if no appeal is presented, or of the appellate authority, if an appeal is disposed of, is final and no second appeal shall be admitted. But if, at any time after the passing of the original or appellate decision, the Collector is satisfied that there has been a material irregularity in the procedure or that the decision was grossly inequitable or that it exceeded the powers of the officer who passed it or that it was passed under a mistake of fact or owing to fraud or misrepresentation he may set aside, cancel or in any way modify the decision passed by an officer subordinate to him. No order should be reversed or modified adversely to the respondent without giving the respondent a notice to show cause against the action proposed to be taken adversely to him." 21. Thus, from B.S.O.15(18)(1), only in case when a patta was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or mistake of fact, patta can be cancelled by following necessary procedure prescribed under the Board Standing Orders. The fourth respondent is not the competent and only the Collector is competent to exercise such power and merely because representations were given to Respondent No.4 for cancellation of entries, failure to exercise power by the Tahsildar cannot be declared as illegal and arbitrary. 22. The fourth respondent is not the competent and only the Collector is competent to exercise such power and merely because representations were given to Respondent No.4 for cancellation of entries, failure to exercise power by the Tahsildar cannot be declared as illegal and arbitrary. 22. Apart from that, no fraud, mistake or misrepresentation of fact is pleaded either in the representations or in the present writ petition to direct the Collector to exercise power under B.S.O. 15(18), as such, question of violation of principles of natural justice while passing impugned proceedings does not arise, as the representations of the petitioners did not disclose any of the requirement to cancel patta issued in favour of said Nidumukkala Ramesh, which is sine qua non to exercise such power under B.S.O. 15(18)(1) of the Board Standing Orders. Therefore, I find no illegality or irregularity in the proceedings issued by the fourth respondent. 23. In any view of the matter, it is an admitted fact that pattas were granted in favour of the petitioners, assigning land in specific survey numbers, as stated supra. But, unless the pattas granted in favour of the petitioners are cancelled, as assignment was issued in their favour by mistake for particular survey number, the question of rectification of survey number in the patta does not arise and only after cancellation of the patta granted in favour of petitioners by the Collector, fresh patta can be issued subject to availability of the land and eligibility of the petitioners for such grant by way of D-Form patta. Hence, non-consideration of the request of these petitioners under two representations dated 15.12.2014 and 20.04.2015 is not in violation of any of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue Standing Orders or any other enactment, thereby, the relief claimed in any one of the representations and in the first part of the prayer is liable to be rejected. So far as the second part of the relief is concerned, it is only a consequential prayer for cancellation of patta issued in favour of petitioners and only to issue fresh patta subject to eligibility of these petitioners and availability of land, necessary rectification of entries in the revenue records can be ordered, but, till such time no recovery can be granted to petitioners. 24. 24. So far as the first petitioner is concerned, he is claiming that he is in possession of Ac.1-98 cents in Sy.No.342/1,2,3. Sy.No.343/3 itself consists of more than Ac.3-48 cents, which was assigned to the third party – Nidumukkala Ramesh under Ex-servicemen quota. Unless the details are given as to how the possession is illegal and impermissible, a direction cannot be issued to rectify the errors in pattadar passbooks and title deeds, since a specific procedure is prescribed under Section 6(b) of the Pattadar Passbook Act, on making such application through Mee Seva on payment of requisite fee. The material produced before this Court at best discloses that, Petitioner Nos. 1 & 3 submitted F-line application to conduct survey of their land and fix boundaries which is in possession of the first petitioner and assigned to third petitioner. The petitioners also placed on record the land revenue receipts evidencing payment of land revenue by Kadiyam Venkateswarlu – third respondent for the land in Sy.No.342/1 for the land admeasuring Ac.2-45 cents for Fasli 1406 to 1410; 1398 to 1404. But, the land he is claiming is D-Form Patta in the same survey number i.e., Sy.No.342/1, but not for the land in Sy.No.343/2 & 3 as claimed by the third petitioner. 25. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that, none of the petitioners approached this Court with clean hands and thereby committed as many errors as possible in making requests, payment of land revenue etc. Such an issue cannot be decided by this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, I find no ground to issue any direction as claimed by these petitioners and consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the petitioners to make appropriate application afresh, enabling the authorities more particularly, Respondent No.4 and the Collector to take appropriate action in this regard in accordance with law. On making such application, the respondents are directed to adhere to the procedure prescribed under law and pass appropriate orders. 26. In the result, writ petition is dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioners to make appropriate application afresh, enabling the authorities more particularly, Respondent No.4 and the Collector to take appropriate action in this regard, in accordance with law. On making such application, the respondents are directed to adhere to the procedure prescribed under law and pass appropriate orders. 26. In the result, writ petition is dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioners to make appropriate application afresh, enabling the authorities more particularly, Respondent No.4 and the Collector to take appropriate action in this regard, in accordance with law. On making such application, the respondents are directed to adhere to the procedure prescribed under law and pass appropriate orders. 27. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.