ORDER : Ninala Jayasurya, J. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the inaction of the 2nd respondent in not proceeding further and passing orders amending the Revenue records pursuant to Notice dated 19.03.2022 in Form VIII under Rule 19(1) of The Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, as illegal, arbitrary etc., and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to forthwith proceed with the matter and pass appropriate orders. 2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard the Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 3. The 1st petitioner, who is an Octogenarian filed the present Writ Petition inter alia stating that one Mr.Intiaz Basha, son of the 1st petitioner is the owner and pattadar of an extent of Ac.0.91 cents of land in Sy.No.296 of Kallur Village, which was bequeathed by his grandmother by way of a Registered Will dated 19.12.1998, that the said Intiaz Basha died in a road accident on 14.10.2016 as a result of which the 1st petitioner was totally crippled and after recovery came to know that in the Revenue records, the name of one Mr.Rajesh Patel was recorded in respect of the above said land. Under the said circumstances, he along with the 2nd petitioner made an application to amend the Revenue records and the 2nd respondent on 19.03.2022 issued Notice in Form VIII under Rule 19(1) of The Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “the Rules”) calling for the objections on their request for amending the Revenue records by incorporating the name of the petitioners, in respect of the said extent of Ac.0.91 cents. 4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that though the 2nd respondent issued a Notice on 19.03.2022 in terms of the above said Rules inviting objections within 15 days from the date of issuance of Notice, he had not taken further action even after expiry of the time stipulated therein. He further submits that though more than one year had elapsed, the 2nd respondent has not passed any orders on the petitioners’ application in spite of their repeated requests. He further submits that though more than one year had elapsed, the 2nd respondent has not passed any orders on the petitioners’ application in spite of their repeated requests. Referring to the provisions under The A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the Rules framed there under, the Learned Counsel would submit that the inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent tantamounts to abdication of statutory duty cast upon him. He submits that due to inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent in proceeding further despite issuance of Notice dated 19.03.2022, the petitioners were not only subjected to mental agony, but also serious prejudice. Making the said submissions, the Learned Counsel seeks appropriate directions in the matter. 5. Before dealing with the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners, which were opposed by the Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue on the basis of the instructions dated 25.06.2023 and the Order dated 30.06.2023 of the 2nd respondent rejecting the application of the petitioners placed before this Court, it would be appropriate to set out the relevant legal provisions for better appreciation of the case. 6. Section 5 of The Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 was amended by the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act (Amendment) Act, 2022 i.e., Act No.15 of 2022 (published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 18.10.2022) and the same reads as follows:- “[5.Amendment and updating of Record of Right:- (1) On receipt of intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right referred to in Section 4, otherwise than by a registered document, the Tahsildar shall determine as to whether, and if so in what manner, the record of rights may be amended in consequence thereof and shall carryout the amendment in the record of rights in accordance with such determination. (2) In the event of the Tahsildar determining that the amendment in consequence of the acquisition of right referred to in sub-section (1) above, is liable to be refused, then the Tahsildar shall transmit all the documents to the Revenue Divisional Officer with the recommendations. (2a) The Revenue Divisional Officer, on receipt of such recommendations, shall pass an order as under, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the interested persons, (i) Confirming the recommendations of the Tahsildar. (ii) Disagreeing with the recommendations of the Tahsildar. (2a) The Revenue Divisional Officer, on receipt of such recommendations, shall pass an order as under, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the interested persons, (i) Confirming the recommendations of the Tahsildar. (ii) Disagreeing with the recommendations of the Tahsildar. (iii) On the receipt of communication of disagreement under 5(2a)(ii), the Tahsildar shall carry out the amendment of R.O.R, as provided for under Section 5(1). Provided that the procedure for initiation and conclusion of action by the Tahsildar and Revenue Divisional Officer shall be such as may be prescribed under the Rules. (3) In case of acquisition of right under Section 4(1) by a registered document in accordance with the provisions under the Registration Act, 1908, the R.O.R shall stand amended to reflect the said transaction. (4) Any person aggrieved by any order passed under sub-sections (1), 2(a) and the amendment of R.O.R under sub-section (3), above may prefer an appeal before the District Revenue Officer within a period of thirty(30) days from the date of receipt of such order or amendment of R.O.R. the Appellate Authority shall dispose the appeal preferably not later than 6 months from the date of filing of such appeal. (5) In all cases of amendment of Record of Rights in resurveyed villages, unless the acquisition of right is for the entire extent of the land parcel, it shall be mandatory to carry out sub division of the Land parcel in the manner prescribed. (6) The District Collector, suo motu or otherwise, shall be competent to initiate proceedings under criminal law in case any application for amendment of R.O.R under this Act is made fraudulently, or on the basis of multiple registrations by the same executant of the same land parcel.] 7. Though the certain amendments were made in the Act, it appears that the Rules have not yet been changed correspondingly. 8. Against the background of the above stated statutory provisions, this Court examined the matter with reference to the factual aspects of the case. Be it be noted, that there is no dispute about issuance of Notice in Form VIII on 19.03.2022 by the 2nd respondent herein. 9. At this juncture, it may also be appropriate to state that the Writ Petition was filed on 23.06.2023. Be it be noted, that there is no dispute about issuance of Notice in Form VIII on 19.03.2022 by the 2nd respondent herein. 9. At this juncture, it may also be appropriate to state that the Writ Petition was filed on 23.06.2023. When the matter came up for admission on 26.06.2023, this Court after going through the instructions dated 25.06.2023 furnished by the 2nd respondent, adjourned the case to 27.06.2023 to enable the Learned Assistant Government Pleader to secure specific instructions with regard to rejection of the petitioners’ request for mutation, as the date of rejection was not mentioned in the said instructions dated 25.06.2023, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:- “In this connection, I submit that, in response to the application made by the writ petitioners for Mutation of Revenue records in their favour at Sy.No.296 of Kallur Village to an extent of Ac.0.91 cents a notice in Form –VIII was issued on 19.03.2022 for calling objections, if any, by 03.04.2022 from any of the interested persons against proposed Mutation of records. However the applicants cum writ petitioners have not submitted certified copies of documents and encumbrance certificate (E.C) in support of their title claim pertaining to property at Sy.No.296 of Kallur Vilage after the completion of prescribed time period for submission of objections. Hence the claim of the applicants for Mutation was not considered and thereby rejected. …………………………………………. Sd/- 25.6.2023 Tahsildar, Kallur.” 10. On 27.06.2023 the matter was adjourned to 03.07.2023. Thereafter, at the time of considering the matter an Order dated 30.06.2023 rejecting the petitioners’ request for mutation of Revenue records was placed before this Court. “ORDER:- It is to inform you that, your request for Mutation of Revenue records in your favour pertaining to Sy.No.296 of Kallur Village to an extent of Ac.0.91 cents is examined with reference to Revenue records and documents submitted by you in support of your claim. Accordingly a notice in Form – VIII was issued on 19.03.2022 for calling objections, if any, by 03.04.2022 from any of the interested persons against proposed Mutation of records. Accordingly a notice in Form – VIII was issued on 19.03.2022 for calling objections, if any, by 03.04.2022 from any of the interested persons against proposed Mutation of records. However you have not submitted certified copies of documents pertaining to subject property i.e., Sy.No.296 of Kallur Village even after the completion of prescribed time period for submission of objections, in support of your title claim, namely registered Will deed said to be executed on 19.12.1988 by your mother Smt.S.Sokhara Bee W/o Abdul Azeez in favour of S.Intiaz Basha and S.Jahangeer Basha along with connected link document and encumbrance certificate consisting the registered sale/gift deeds executed after Will deed for taking appropriate decision regarding Mutation as per the Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971 and Rules 1989. Further you referred to the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Prl. Senior Civil Judge Court, Kurnool in O.S.No.91/97 in support of your title claim. However the certified copy of judgment was not submitted by you for taking further action. For the aforesaid reasons, your request for Mutation of Revenue records in your favour pertaining to Sy.No.296 of Kallur Village to an extent of Ac.0.91 cents cannot be considered as per rules in force and therefore rejected. Sd/- dt.30.6.2023 Tahsildar Kalllur” 11. A bare reading of the above extracted instructions dated 25.06.2023 and the Order dated 30.06.2023, makes the following aspects clear: i) As on the date of furnishing instructions on 25.06.2023 by the 2nd respondent, no rejection order was passed by him; ii) The Writ Petition was adjourned on 27.06.2023 and thereafter the rejection order was passed on 30.06.2023; iii) The very same Officer, who issued a notice dated 19.03.2022 also passed the Order dated 30.06.2023; iv) The said order was passed after expiry of sixty days stipulated in Rule 18(3)(c) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989; v) By virtue of the amendment to Section 5 of the Act, the 2nd respondent cannot straight away reject the application for mutation. 12. Passing of orders only after filing of the Writ Petition, thus, supports the case of the petitioners about the inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent and abdication of duties/functions on his part and thereby justifies the declaration sought for the petitioners. Further, the above noted aspects (i) to (v) renders the order dated 30.06.2023 invalid. 13. 12. Passing of orders only after filing of the Writ Petition, thus, supports the case of the petitioners about the inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent and abdication of duties/functions on his part and thereby justifies the declaration sought for the petitioners. Further, the above noted aspects (i) to (v) renders the order dated 30.06.2023 invalid. 13. In the usual course, in view of the subsequent events i.e., passing of order pursuant to the application made by the petitioners, the matter would have been disposed of, leaving it open to the writ petitioners to work out their remedies, in accordance with Law or permit them to amend the prayer. However, this case is a glaring example, the manner in which, the concerned Officers are acting while dealing with the valuable Rights provided to the applicants/parties under The A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. 14. Therefore, requiring the writ petitioners to file another Writ Petition or an application, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, would be in-appropriate and unjust. Suffice to state that the order in RC.B.569/2023 dated 30.6.2023 of the 2nd respondent suffers from several infirmities, without any Legal efficacy and shall not be given effect to. 15. In the light of the above legal and factual position, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be just and appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to revive the petitioner’s application for mutation, issue a fresh Notice in Form VIII and adhere to the statutory provisions of the A.P. Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act as amended by Act No.15 of 2022 and complete his part of the functions, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 16. Before parting with this case, this Court may place it on record that in many number of matters, the concerned Officers are acting in a very casual and mechanical manner, without application of mind and giving scope to un-necessary litigation. Added to that, they are not furnishing relevant and timely instructions to the Learned Government Pleaders to enable them to assist the Courts. Be that as it may. 17. Added to that, they are not furnishing relevant and timely instructions to the Learned Government Pleaders to enable them to assist the Courts. Be that as it may. 17. So far as the case on hand is concerned, the indolent attitude of the 2nd respondent in taking more than one year to deal with petitioner’s application and the conduct in giving an impression that by the time of filing of the Writ Petition the application was rejected cannot be countenanced. This Court, therefore is of the considered view that it is a fit case to award exemplary costs of Rs.25,000/-, however, the same is restricted to Rs.5,000/-. 18. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioners, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is needless to observe that the 2nd respondent shall take necessary action on the application made by the petitioners on its own merits and strictly, in accordance with Law. 19. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.