ORD ER : 1. This writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “… to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order No.D/78/2015 dated 8-7-2015 of the 3 rd respondent in respect of land in Sy.No.79 admeasuring Ac.5.39 cents situated at Chinnasiddapur village, Bejjur Mandal, Komaram Bheem Asifabad District, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to Andhra Pradesh Rights in land and Pattadar Passbooks Act and Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and consequently set aside the order No.D/78/2015 dated 8-7-2015 of the 3 rd respondent in respect of the above said land and pass such further order or other orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard learned counsel representing the advocate on record, Ms. D. Haritha Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 3. Case of the petitioner is that he is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs.5.39 cents in Survey No.79 situated at Chinnasiddapur Village, Bejjur Mandal. Father of petitioner purchased the said land by way of simple sale deed, dated 05.08.1974, and since then his father was in possession and enjoyment of the said land. Having purchased the said land in 1974 by way of simple sale deed, it is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that in the year 2008, petitioner applied for regularization of simple sale deed under Section 5A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the ROR Act’) and the Rules made thereunder. 4. While so, an application dated 19.01.2015 was made by respondent No.5 before respondent No.2 i.e., the office of Collector, Komurambheem, Asifabad District, in Praja Vani (a programme of the State Government) seeking cancellation of mutation of land admeasuring Acs.5.39 cents in Survey No.79 allegedly claimed by petitioner on the basis of a simple sale deed. 5. 4. While so, an application dated 19.01.2015 was made by respondent No.5 before respondent No.2 i.e., the office of Collector, Komurambheem, Asifabad District, in Praja Vani (a programme of the State Government) seeking cancellation of mutation of land admeasuring Acs.5.39 cents in Survey No.79 allegedly claimed by petitioner on the basis of a simple sale deed. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that application dated 19.01.2015 made by respondent No.5 requesting to cancel the mutation and restore the patta in the name of original pattadar on the ground that she is in the physical possession of the said land is forwarded to respondent No.3 i.e., the office of Revenue Divisional Officer with a direction to treat it as an appeal and to take necessary action. 6. It is submitted that the Sub Collector and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Asifabad, respondent No.2, treating the said request of the office of the Collector as an appeal, heard the matter on 07.07.2015 and by order dated 08.07.2015 vide Case No.D/78/2015, set aside the regularization orders passed in Case No.ROR/X/2/2008, dated 01.11.2008 in respect of petitioner. The said order dated 08.07.2015 is under challenge in this writ petition. 7. It is further submitted that respondent No.2, without applying his mind, basing on the report of respondent No.4 i.e., the office of Tahsildar, Bejjur Mandal, passed orders setting aside the regularization orders of respondent No.4, which is without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the ROR Act. 8. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the documents annexed, including notice dated 06.03.2017 addressed to petitioner from the office of Tahsildar, Bejjur Mandal. 9. The order of the Sub Collector and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Asifabad, is annexed as document (Ex.P1 at page No.11). Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by respondent No.5 by exercising suo motu power which is not vested in him under the ROR Act and that the order of respondent No.2 in passing orders to cancel the Pattadar Passbook is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by respondent No.5 by exercising suo motu power which is not vested in him under the ROR Act and that the order of respondent No.2 in passing orders to cancel the Pattadar Passbook is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 10. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that petitioner herein has not submitted any documents before the Sub Collector and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Asifabad, and that basing on the representation received in the office of Collector, by order dated 08.07.2015, it was directed by office of Sub Collector to the Tahsildar, Bejjur Mandal to conduct a fresh enquiry in Survey No.79 for land admeasuring Acs.5.39 cents situated at Chinna Siddapur Village of Bejjur Mandal by issuing fresh notices to all the concerned and interested persons and to pass appropriate orders. 11. It is trite to take note of the fact that if the subject land is purchased by father of petitioner and petitioner applied for regularization of the said land, how petitioner can apply for regularization of the land, that too when the land is purchased by way of a simple sale deed. There is no Section available in ROR Act that a simple sale deed can be regularized after a period of 34 years. This is one of the grounds which have been considered by the Sub Collector and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Asifabad, in his order dated 08.07.2015. 12. It is pertinent to extract notice dated 06.03.2017 issued to petitioner and respondent No.5. The following are the contents of the notice dated 06.03.2017. “… In view of the land dispute in Sy.No.79 admeasuring Ac.5.00 guntas of Chinna Siddapur village, between the Kondaveeti Bhaskar Raju S/o. Appala Raju, R/o.Yelkapalli B Village and Smt. Kucherla Prameela, W/o. Posha Mallu as per the case No.D1/78/2015 dated 8-7-2015 of the Sub Collector, Asifabad Sri Kondaveeti Bhaskar Raju, S/o.Appala Raju, R/o. Yelkapur B village, land Sy.No.79 admeasuring Ac.5.00 guntas, cancellation of patta and directed for enquiry for change of patta and to attend the enquiry on 25.3.2017 at 11.00 A.M. before the Tahsildar office, Bejjur along with all the documents and this is final notice and as such to putforth all the real facts and also any objections, if any in this regard.” 13. On a perusal of the order dated 08.07.2015, it is apparent that it is upon the directions of the office of the Collector, the issue was taken up for enquiry under the ROR Act by clubbing two petitions by numbering the Case with No.D/78/2015. It is trite to take note of the contents of the order dated 08.07.2015 passed by sub Collector and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Asifabad, which are as follows: “… The Petitioner Smt. K. Pramilla, W/o Possamallu, present and the Respondent Sri Kondaveeti Bhaskar Raju, S/o. Kondaveeti Appala Raju absent. Moreover the Respondent has submitted written statement addressed to this court on 28.05.2015. The Tahsildar Bejjur (M) vide reference 4 th cited has submitted report and records. During the enquiry the Petitioner replaced the same contents filed in the petition. On verification of the written statement submitted by the Respondent it is revealed that the Sy.No.79 ext.5.39 acres situated at Chinna Siddapur village is stand patta in the name of Smt. Rangubai W/o. Rajeshwar Rao, and the same land was purchased by his late father through Ordinary Sale deed 05.08.1974 in his name duly taking physical possession and his father approached the Revenue authority at his life time. He was also again approached the Revenue authorities during the year 2008 by submitting above said OSD. After due enquiry the Tahasildar Bejjur (M) has been transferred patta in his name by collecting required fee through Challan No.673 & 674 dated 18.10.2008 and now he is in physical possession. But, the Respondent did not submit any documentary evidence in support of his written statement. On perusal of the report and records submitted by the Tahasilder Bejjur (?), it is revealed that the Sy.No.79 ext.5.39 acres situated at Chinna Siddapur village of Bejjur (M) recorded in the name of Smt. Rangubai w/o. Rajeshwar Rao as a Pattedar from 1967- 68 to 2006-07, and she was sold away the same land to one Sri Kondaveeti Bhasker Raju S/o Appala Raju through OSD dated 5.08.1974 and the purchaser who is the Respondent in this case has filed a Form-X claim before the Tahsildar Bejjur (M) along with above said OSD during the year 2008. The Tahsildar Bejjur (M) has registered a case under ROR/X5/08 dated 1.11.2008 and transferred the patta in the name of Respondent Sri Kondaveeti Bhaskar Raju S/o Appala Raju. The Tahsildar Bejjur (M) has registered a case under ROR/X5/08 dated 1.11.2008 and transferred the patta in the name of Respondent Sri Kondaveeti Bhaskar Raju S/o Appala Raju. But on verification of the Pahanies for the year 1967-68 to 2010-2011, it is revealed that Smt. Rangubai w/o Rajeshwar Rao recorded as a pattedar from 1967-68 to 2006-2007, the cultivation column shows that one Sri Kotrangi Jangu Mera was in physical possession from the year 1967-68 to 1984-85, and during the year 1986-87 kept fallow. From 1987-88 to 1992-93 and 1994-95 to 2002-2003 recorded cultivation column in the name of Smt. Chilukuri Ammakka, and then after recorded Rangubai as cultivator from 2004-05 to 2006-07. According to the Tahsildar, Bejjur report in 1992-93 Pahani of Chinna Siddapur village it is clear that the Smt. Chilukuri Ammakka has purchased the above said land from the original pattadar by name Smt. Rangubai w/o Rajeshwar Rao. On verification of the ROR file bearing No.ROR/X/02/08 it is revealed that the following errors are found viz. (a) Notices are not served on all the concerned (b) Statement of the Pattedar or her legal heirs are not recorded (c) Grama Sabha has not been conducted (d) The Vendee (Respondent) is not in physical possession from the date of purchase and he is in possession from the year 2007-08 to 2010-11 as per record in above said suit land and the said OSD dated 5.08.1974 was implemented in the revenue record during the Year 2008 by issuing 13(C) under ROR Act, which is after lapse of 34 years without giving notices to concerned persons. It is also not observed by the Tahsildar, Bejjur that one Sri Kotrangi Jangu Mera has got Judgment vide OS No.7/86 dated 24.03.1987 over above suit land who is in physical possession from the year 1967-68 to 1994-85 as per record (e) There are many lapses are there in the file and even the signature of Kotrangi Venkati S/o Gosaya is not matching with reference to statement available in file and the statement taken from same person by the VRO concerned on 7.05 2015. In view of the above my opinion is that the Tahsildar Bejjur (M) has not followed procedure laid down under Section 4 & 5-A of the ROR Act 1974 as amended in Act 11 of 1980 and Act 1 of 1989. In view of the above my opinion is that the Tahsildar Bejjur (M) has not followed procedure laid down under Section 4 & 5-A of the ROR Act 1974 as amended in Act 11 of 1980 and Act 1 of 1989. Since the Chilukuri Ammakka is in possession of the land bearing Sy.No.79 ext.5.39 acres situated at Chinna Siddapur village of Bejjur (M) and again suddenly after lapse 16 years Rangubai (Pattedar) name appeared in cultivator column. If the Respondent bought above said land during the year 1974, why he is not in physical possession until 2007-08. The Respondent Sri Kondaveeti Bhaskar Raju S/o Appala Raju did not submit any reasons for above lapse.” 14. On a perusal of the order of the Sub-Collector (Sub Divisional Magistrate), it is apparent that petitioner (herein) was respondent before Sub Collector, appeared and submitted his written statement on 28.05.2015 before the Sub Collector. In the said written statement, facts as reflected in the writ affidavit were adverted to. 15. On a perusal of the order, it is observed that petitioner herein has not pleaded the aspect of maintainability of application on the ground of delay. In the absence of canvassing the said ground before the primary authority, having produced all the documents i.e., Form X and other documents and having submitted to the jurisdiction of the authority, petitioner cannot now be permitted to agitate or assail the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate on the ground not canvassed before the primary authority. 16. Petitioner kept quiet for more than 34 years for seeking mutation in the revenue records after purchasing the property (purchased by father of petitioner) in 1974. There is no explanation forthcoming in the writ affidavit for such delay in seeking the mutation(s), yet the officer carried out the mutation(s) in the revenue records, which was complained of, during prajavani to the office of Collector. 17. On a perusal of the order, it is observed that respondent/petitioner herein was in possession of the subject land from 2007-08 to 2010-11. From the date of purchase till 2007-08, name of petitioner is not recorded in the pahanies (revenue documents), order extracted supra reflects the details of those whose names are found in the pahanies. 17. On a perusal of the order, it is observed that respondent/petitioner herein was in possession of the subject land from 2007-08 to 2010-11. From the date of purchase till 2007-08, name of petitioner is not recorded in the pahanies (revenue documents), order extracted supra reflects the details of those whose names are found in the pahanies. Without issuing notices to the interested persons, the ordinary sale deed dated 05.08.1974 was implemented in the revenue record in 2008 by issuing certificate in 13(C) under ROR Act i.e., after a lapse of 34 years. This apparently is a lapse on the part of respondent authority (Tahsildar), who passed the order, that the petitioner was in possession, but, the findings of the Sub Collector, Asifabad, speak otherwise in the order. 18. This Court on 28.04.2017 granted the order of status quo regarding possession and on 20.04.2018, it was extended till the next date of hearing and the matter was listed in February, 2025. 19. It is observed from the order dated 08.07.2015, that the office of the Sub Collector and Sub Divisional Magistrate directed the office of Tahsildar, Bejjur Mandal, to conduct a fresh enquiry to the extent of land admeasuring Acs.5.39 cents in Sy.No.79, by issuing fresh notices to all the concerned and interested persons and pass appropriate orders under Section 5A of the ROR Act and the Rules, within a period of eight weeks. Due to the interim orders of status quo with respect to possession of the subject property, it appears that no orders are passed by the office of Tahsildar. 20. Having perused the material on record and the contentions of learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, this Court deems it appropriate that the status quo shall continue till the office of Tahsildar, Bejjur Mandal, passes orders in accordance with law, as directed by the office of Sub-Collector. Needless to state that notices have to be issued to all the concerned and a fresh enquiry be conducted, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as directed by the Sub Collector. 21. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.