ORDER : K.Sarath, J. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the order passed by the respondent No.15-Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in File No.D5/372/2011 dated 16.01.2014 in respect of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac:4-29 gts in Sy.No.254 situated at Keesara Daira Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri B. Venkat Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt S. Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondent Nos.12 and 15 and perused the material on record. In spite of service of notice, none appears for the respondent Nos.1 to 11, 13 and 14. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 is owner and possessor of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.6-00 gts out of Ac:10-19 gts situated in Sy.No.254 and to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts out of Ac.6-00 situated in Sy.No.255 total to an extent of Ac.7-00 gts situated at Keesara Daira village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 24.05.2002 vide document No.2646/2002 and her name was mutated in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor as per the order of the respondent No.12- Tahsildar in File No.B/2695/2002 dated 28.12.2002 and thereafter pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in favour of the petitioner No.1 and since then, the petitioner No.1 and her husband-petitioner No.2 were in possession and enjoyment of the said land. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that originally the vendor of the petitioner No.1 namely L.Bikshal Rao has purchased the land through registered sale deeds and the respondent Nos.1 to 11 are the legal heirs of the vendors of the said sale deeds. After purchase, the name of said L. Bikshal Rao was mutated in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor by virtue of the proceedings in File No.B/1663/2001 and pattadar passbook and title deeds were issued to him. When the said L. Bikshal Rao filed appeal for rectification of entries in the possessory column, the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed orders in File No.A2/6370/1997 dated 29.01.2001 for incorporation of the name of said L. Bikshal Rao in possessory column and the same was implemented. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent Nos.1 to 11 has filed a revision before the respondent No.15. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent Nos.1 to 11 has filed a revision before the respondent No.15. Thus, by virtue of the order of mutation in File No.B1/1663/2001 and the orders in File No.A2/6370/1997 dated 29.01.2001, the name of said L. Bikshal Rao is appearing in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor and thereafter, the name of the petitioner No.1 is appearing in the revenue records from 2002 onwards. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent Ns.1 to 11 have filed suit in O.S.No.1660 of 2004 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District against the petitioners for perpetual injunction in respect of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac12-28 gts in Sy.Nos.254, 255 and 256 situated at Keesara Daira Village and the same was dismissed on merits and the said Judgment and Decree have become final as no appeal is preferred by the respondent Nos.1 to 11 and so also the respondent Nos.1 to 11 have not questioned the proceedings of mutation in favour of Sri L. Bikshal Rao in File No.B/1663/2001 and the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer in File No.A2/6370/1997 dated 29.01.2001 and also not questioned the mutation proceedings in favour of the petitioner No.1 pursuant to her purchase from Sri L. Bikshal Rao and the therefore, the said proceedings have attained finality. He further submits that without challenging the mutation proceedings, after a long lapse of time, the respondent Nos.1 to 11 have filed revision before the respondent No.15, who in turn has passed the impugned order remanding the matter to the respondent No.12-Tahsildar without examining the maintainability of the revision, which is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that the respondent No.15 ought not to have entertained the revision as there is dispute as to the title and possession of the subject property and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the respondent No.15-Joint Collector, after hearing both sides and after perusing the entire material on record has rightly remanded the matter to the respondent No.12-Tahsildar for fresh enquiry and there is no need to interfere with by this Court and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 7. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the respondent No.15-Joint Collector, after hearing both sides and after perusing the entire material on record has rightly remanded the matter to the respondent No.12-Tahsildar for fresh enquiry and there is no need to interfere with by this Court and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 7. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are questioning the order passed by the respondent No.15 in File No.D5/372/2011 dated 16.01.2014 directing the respondent No.12 to conduct enquiry with regard to the entries recorded in Sy.No.254 situated at Keesara Daira Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The respondent Nos.1 to 11 herein have filed revision petition under Section 9 of the Telangana Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Ac t, 1974 aggrieved by the entries recorded in the pahanies for the year 2008-09 and 2009-10 and also right from 1975-76 to till date on the ground that in spite of issuing 38-E certificate, the names of previous pattadars were continuing and the 38-E holders were shown as occupants in the pahanies for the year 1975-76, 1977-78, 1979-81, 1988-89 against Sy.Nos.254, 255 and 256. The Tahsildar without verifying the revenue records has recorded the names of the petitioners by removing the names of 38-E holders without notice to them in the pahani for the year 2009-10 against Sy.No.254. 8. While disposing of the revision petition, the respondent No.15 has given a finding that on examining the case, it is seen that the rectification of entries sought right from the year 1975 onwards when the 38-E Certificate was issued to the ancestors of the unofficial respondents and for all the alleged wrong entries, allegations have been leveled against the Tahsildar, but they did not seek any clarification from the Tahsildar before filing the revision petition about the said alleged wrong entries nor filed any representation before the Tahsildar to know the reasons and circumstances under which the said entries have crept in revenue records. Without knowing the facts for the alleged crept of wrong entries in the revenue records from the primary authority, who is the custodian of revenue records, the filing of revision petition seeking rectification of entries seems to be not appropriate. Without knowing the facts for the alleged crept of wrong entries in the revenue records from the primary authority, who is the custodian of revenue records, the filing of revision petition seeking rectification of entries seems to be not appropriate. In spite of said findings, the matter was remanded to the Tahsildar, Keesara Mandal for conducting enquiry as per the revision petition filed by the unofficial respondents. 9. The contention of the writ petitioners is that the mutation proceedings granted in favour of the vendor of the petitioner No.1 in File No.B/1663/2001 by the competent authority and consequently, mutation proceedings in File No.B/2695/2002 dated 28.12.2002 were issued in favour of the petitioner No.1 in respect of the subject lands. The petitioner No.1 has purchased the land through registered sale deed and the revision filed by the unofficial respondent Nos.1 to 11 under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 for rectification of entries in the pahanies for the year 1975-76 is not sustainable in law after delay of nearly 39 years. 10. The other contention of the petitioners is that the respondent Nos.1 to 11 without questioning the mutation proceedings issued in favour of the petitioner No.1 have filed the revision petition for correction of entries. The respondent No.15-Joint Collector ought not to have entertained the revision in view of the serious dispute as to the title and possession in respect of the subject property and instead of remanding the matter should have directed the respondent Nos.1 to 11 to approach the Civil Court to establish their title for correction of entries in the revenue records as contemplated under Section 8(2) of ROR ACT and the same is arbitrary, illegal and without any power. 11. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent Nos.1 to 11 have filed O.S.No.1660 of 2014 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District against the writ petitioners for perpetual injunction in respect of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.12-28 gts in Sy.Nos.254, 255 and 265 and the said suit was dismissed on merits recording the finding of title and possession in favour of the petitioners and no appeal was filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 11 and the same has attained finality. 12. In spite of service of notice, none appears for the respondent Nos.1 to 11. 12. In spite of service of notice, none appears for the respondent Nos.1 to 11. As per the material available on record, it clearly shows that the official respondents also have not filed counter denying the averments made by the peatitioners. The unofficial respondent Nos.1 to 11 are seeking for correction of entries from the year 1975-76 by filing revision under ROR ACT without questioning the mutation proceedings in favour of the petitioner No.1 and also her vendor. In view of the same, the respondent No.15 has disposed of the revision filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 11 in spite of stating that they have not filed any document, directed the Tahsildar to conduct fresh enquiry and only basing on the representation of the unofficial respondents for rectification of the entries is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction on the ground of delay and also there is no challenge for mutation proceedings. 13. In view of the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order in File No.D5/372/2011 dated 16.01.2014 passed by the respondent No.15. No order as to costs. 14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.