ORDER : E.V.VENUGOPAL, J. Heard Sri J.Prabhakar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Naresh Reddy Chinnolla, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vedula Srinivas, the learned senior counsel appearing for Mrs. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.4 and Sri L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of learned Government Pleader for Revenue Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioners are constrained to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court aggrieved by the illegal action of respondents Nos.2 and 3 in deleting their names and mutating the name of respondent No.4 in the revenue records in respect of land in Sy.Nos.514/A/2, 514/AA/1/1/1/1/2, 516/A/2 and 516/AA/2, admeasuring Ac.4–21 gts., situated at Turkapally Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal–Malkajgiri District. The impugned mutation was effected without issuing any notice to the Petitioners and is ex facie illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. This writ petition was earlier disposed on 24.08.2023 basing on a counter affidavit said to have been filed by the respondent No.4 stating that in view of the execution of registered sale deeds by her father in favour of the vendor of the petitioners and surrender of tenancy rights by her father, neither she nor her father has right or title over the subject lands. In that view of the matter, the writ petition was allowed. Subsequently, the 4 th respondent came up with IA No.3 of 2023 seeking review of the order dated 24.08.2023 on the premise that the above stated counter affidavit is concocted and that her thumb impression thereon was forged. In that backdrop on 12.03.2024 this Court recalled the order dated 24.08.2023 and restored the matter to file. 4. The Petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of land in Sy.No.514 (Ac.17–26 gts.) and Sy.No.516 (Ac.7–25 gts.) of Turkapally Village, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed bearing Document No.4962 of 2006 dated 09.03.2006 from Sri B. Ramesh Reddy. Their names were duly mutated under the ROR Act, 1971 and pattadar passbooks, title deeds and e-passbooks were issued in their favour. (a) Prior to the petitioners’ purchase, the land belonged to Smt. Ummatunnisa Begum and others. Their names were duly mutated under the ROR Act, 1971 and pattadar passbooks, title deeds and e-passbooks were issued in their favour. (a) Prior to the petitioners’ purchase, the land belonged to Smt. Ummatunnisa Begum and others. The protected tenants, including Section 38-E certificate holders, along with the pattadars, conveyed the land to Sri B. Ramesh Reddy under registered sale deeds bearing Document Nos.217 and 212 of 1991 dated 16.01.1991, followed by mutation and issuance of pattadar passbooks in his name. Sri B. Ramesh Reddy thereafter conveyed the land to the Petitioners in 2006. Since then, the Petitioners have been in continuous and uninterrupted possession and their names consistently reflected in the revenue records. (b) Recently, the petitioners discovered that the name of respondent No.4 was entered in the revenue records and a pattadar passbook issued in her favour. Upon enquiry, respondent No.3 stated that the mutation was based on alleged succession proceedings recognizing respondent No.4 as the legal heir of Ooradi Rajaiah. However, Ooradi Rajaiah had already alienated his entire share under the sale deeds dated 16.01.1991 and had surrendered his tenancy rights under Proceedings No.B/69/90 dated 08.02.1990. Consequently, no land remained vested in him and respondent No.4 could not have inherited any right or interest therein. (c) The entries in favour of respondent No.4 are thus fraudulent, obtained by misrepresentation and were effected without notice to the petitioners. The action of respondents Nos.2 and 3 in deleting the petitioners’ names and mutating respondent No.4 is arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and infringes the petitioners’ right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Despite repeated requests, respondent No.3 has failed to furnish copies of the alleged proceedings, compelling the Petitioners to file an RTI application, the response to which is awaited. (d) The petitioners categorically state that they have never executed any conveyance in favour of respondent No.4 and were not parties to any proceedings affecting the subject land. Except for an earlier sale of Ac.2-00 gts., in Sy.No.514 by the second petitioner, they continue to possess the remaining extents. Respondent No.4, relying on the illegal entries, is attempting to alienate the land and has approached respondent No.3 for slot booking, which would cause irreparable loss and injury to the Petitioners. Except for an earlier sale of Ac.2-00 gts., in Sy.No.514 by the second petitioner, they continue to possess the remaining extents. Respondent No.4, relying on the illegal entries, is attempting to alienate the land and has approached respondent No.3 for slot booking, which would cause irreparable loss and injury to the Petitioners. In these circumstances, the Petitioners have no efficacious alternative remedy and hence invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The unofficial respondent No.4 contends that the petitioners claim title over Ac.17–26 gts. in Sy.No.514 and Ac.7–25 gts. in Sy.No.516 of Turkapally Village based on two sale deeds dated 16.01.1991 executed in favour of Sri B.Ramesh Reddy and a subsequent sale deed dated 09.03.2006 in their favour, coupled with alleged mutation and issuance of pattadar passbooks and further rely upon purported surrender proceedings of the protected tenant Ooradi Rajaiah under Proceedings No.B/69/90 dated 08.02.1990. These claims are false and founded on fabricated documents, as Rajaiah died on 05.06.1978, rendering any alleged surrender proceedings void and unenforceable. In any event, protected tenancy rights cannot be surrendered to third parties and the alleged executants were neither Rajaiah nor his lawful heirs, namely the 4 th respondent and her sister. The sale deeds in favour of Sri B. Ramesh Reddy make no reference to Rajaiah or his heirs and therefore conveyed no title, rendering the petitioners’ subsequent purchase and mutation invalid. (a) Pursuant to the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 25.04.2017 in W.P. No.14353 of 2017, the Tahsildar issued notices dated 31.07.2017 and 07.07.2018 to all concerned, including the Petitioners, who failed to appear, whereupon mutation was lawfully effected in favour of respondent No.4. The petitioners’ plea of absence of notice or enquiry is false and amounts to suppression of material facts. Having no lawful right or interest in the subject land, the Petitioners are not entitled to seek deletion of respondent No.4’s name or restoration of their own, and the interim order obtained by them is liable to be vacated as having been secured by misrepresentation. 6. Having no lawful right or interest in the subject land, the Petitioners are not entitled to seek deletion of respondent No.4’s name or restoration of their own, and the interim order obtained by them is liable to be vacated as having been secured by misrepresentation. 6. The 3 rd respondent–Tahsildar, in the counter-affidavit, states that as per the old Pahani for 1961–62, Sy.No.514 (Ac.19–26 gts.) and Sy.No.516 (Ac.7–25 gts.) of Turkapally Village were patta lands standing in the name of Azeezunnisa Begum and were subsequently mutated as per Faisal Patti 1985–86 vide No.B/1998/85 in favour of Ahmed Abdul Khadri and others to an extent of Ac.14–26 gts., in Sy.No.514 and Ac.7–10 gts. in Sy.No.516. The said lands, recorded as protected tenancy lands of Uradi Rajaiah and other co- protected tenants, were surrendered by them through an affidavit before the Tahsildar, pursuant to which Proceedings No.B/69/90 dated 08.02.1990 were issued confirming surrender in favour of Sri B. Ramesh Reddy, followed by execution of registered sale deeds bearing Doc.Nos.212 and 217 of 1991 by the pattadars and protected tenants in his favour, and a subsequent sale deed No.4962 of 2006 dated 09.03.2006 conveying the land to Bommena Bhupathi Rao and Jukati Hanumanth Rao, whose names stood mutated in the revenue records up to Pahani 2013–14. Thereafter, pursuant to the order of this Hon’ble Court in W.P. No.14353 of 2017, notice dated 31.07.2017 was issued to the legal heirs of the protected tenants, though the old record is presently untraceable, and while the name of M.Balamma (respondent No.4) appears in the Dharani portal under Khata No.60776, no supporting proceedings are available. The Tahsildar asserts that the claim of the revision petitioner challenging the surrender of protected tenancy rights is untenable in view of the valid issuance of 38-E certificates, that his office is only a recording authority lacking jurisdiction to review such proceedings, which can be challenged only before the District Collector and that the petitioner has approached this Court relying merely on an online Dharani entry while suppressing material facts, warranting dismissal of Review Petition I.A.No.3 of 2023 in W.P.No.20828 of 2023. 7. 7. The contention of the learned senior counsel Sri J.Prabhakar appearing on behalf of Sri Naresh Reddy Chinnolla, the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the absolute owners of land in Sy.No.514/A to an extent of Ac.9- 33 guntas each, total admeasuring Ac.19-26 guntas. The petitioners purchased the land in Sy.No.516/AA to an extent of Ac.3-3250 guntas each total admeasuring to Ac.7-25 guntas at Turkapally village, Shamirpet Mandal, under registered sale deed bearing document No.4962/2006 dated 09.3.2006 from B.Ramesh Reddy. Thereupon, the names of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue records, pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in their favour and subsequently e-patta passbooks were also issued. (a) It is further submitted that originally these lands were belonging to one Ummatunnisa Begum W/o Ahmed Abdul Kabir. They were protected tenants for these lands and were granted 38-E certificate under the Tenancy Act. The Certificate holders along with the pattadars executed a registered sale deed in favour of B.Ramesh Reddy in respect of the land in Sy.No.514 through registered sale deed Doct.No.217 of 1991 dated 16.01.1991. Similarly, another registered sale deed was executed vide Doct.No.212/1991 dated 16.01.1991 in respect of survey No.516 admeasuring Ac.7.25 gts. and the name of B.Ramesh Reddy was recorded in the Revenue Records. Thereafter it came to the knowledge of the petitioners that the Respondent No.4 Smt.M.Balamma W/o Narsaiah who is claiming to be daughter Ooradi Rajiaha (Respondent No.4) was recorded in the Revenue Records as detailed in Para 1 and Pattadar passbooks were issued in respect of aforesaid land to her. Upon inquiry the petitioners were informed that the same was issued based on court cases, succession proceedings in favour of Respondent No.4 as legal heir of Ooradi Rajaiah. (b) The learned senior counsel further submitted that Ooradi Rajaiah already transferred his share of land under document No.217/1991 dated 16.01.1991 and also surrendered his tenancy rights which was recorded in proceedings No.B/69/90 dated 08.02.1990. (c) It is his predominant contention that no notice was issued to the petitioners prior to the present mutation and no proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision rendered in Chinnam Pandurangam Vs. (c) It is his predominant contention that no notice was issued to the petitioners prior to the present mutation and no proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision rendered in Chinnam Pandurangam Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 2007 (6) ALD 348 (FB) and others mainly contending that the revenue authorities cannot mutate or alter land records without strictly following the mandatory procedure of issuing individual written notice to all persons whose names appear in the existing records, in addition to publishing a general public notice, because both requirements are essential to uphold the principle of natural justice. The mutation affecting someone’s rights cannot be justified merely on the basis of public notice and anyone whose interests may be impacted must be personally informed and given an opportunity to object to strengthen fairness in land-record administration and preventing arbitrary or unnoticed changes to ownership entries. 8. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned senior counsel for the unofficial respondent No.4, contends that the petitioners’ title is based on void and fabricated documents. The alleged surrender of protected tenancy by Ooradi Rajaiah is legally impossible, as he died in 1978, long before the purported proceedings of 1990 and such tenancy cannot be surrendered in favour of third parties. The sale deeds relied upon do not trace title to Rajaiah or his lawful heirs and therefore convey no valid rights. Pursuant to this Court’s directions, due notice was issued and mutation was lawfully effected in favour of the 4th respondent after the petitioners failed to appear. Having no lawful interest, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief, and the interim order obtained by misrepresentation is liable to be vacated. 9. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader contends that the revenue records consistently trace title from the original pattadar, Azeezunnisa Begum, through lawful mutation, surrender of protected tenancy and registered sale deeds in favour of B.Ramesh Reddy and thereafter the petitioner, with mutations reflected up to Pahani 2013–14. The surrender of protected tenancy was confirmed under Proceedings dated 08.02.1990 and followed by issuance of a 38-E certificate, which cannot be questioned before the Tahsildar and lies, if at all, before the District Collector. The Tahsildar is only a recording authority and lacks jurisdiction to review concluded tenancy proceedings. The surrender of protected tenancy was confirmed under Proceedings dated 08.02.1990 and followed by issuance of a 38-E certificate, which cannot be questioned before the Tahsildar and lies, if at all, before the District Collector. The Tahsildar is only a recording authority and lacks jurisdiction to review concluded tenancy proceedings. The 4 th respondent’s name appearing in the Dharani portal is unsupported by any valid proceedings and the petitioner has approached this Court relying solely on an online entry while suppressing material facts. Hence, the review petition deserves dismissal. 10. This Court perused the material available on record and heard the rival contentions advanced by either side and gave utmost consideration to the same. 11. This Court is conscious that mutation entries in revenue records do not confer or extinguish title and that disputed questions of title cannot ordinarily be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. However, where revenue authorities act in violation of statutory procedure, principles of natural justice, or without jurisdiction, such action is amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. The present writ petition is therefore examined not on the validity of rival title claims, but on the legality of the procedure adopted by respondents Nos.2 and 3 in deleting the petitioners’ names and mutating the name of respondent No.4. 13. From the pleadings of all parties, it is apparent on the face of the record that admittedly the petitioners purchased the subject lands under a registered sale deed dated 09.03.2006 and their names were mutated in the revenue records. Pattadar passbooks, title deeds and e-passbooks were issued in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners’ names continued in the revenue records at least till Pahani 2013–14. The petitioners’ names were thereafter deleted and the name of respondent No.4 was entered in the revenue records. No copy of any speaking order, mutation proceedings, succession proceedings, or enquiry report justifying such deletion and mutation has been produced before this Court by the revenue authorities. The Tahsildar himself admits that the old record is untraceable and that no supporting proceedings are available for the entry in favour of respondent No.4, except the Dharani portal entry. 14. The core grievance of the petitioners is that their names were deleted from the revenue records without issuance of individual notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing. The Tahsildar himself admits that the old record is untraceable and that no supporting proceedings are available for the entry in favour of respondent No.4, except the Dharani portal entry. 14. The core grievance of the petitioners is that their names were deleted from the revenue records without issuance of individual notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing. Though respondent No.4 contends that notices were issued pursuant to orders in W.P.No.14353 of 2017, no proof of service of notice on the petitioners has been placed on record. Mere issuance of notices, without proof of service, cannot satisfy the requirements of natural justice, particularly when vested revenue entries are sought to be disturbed. Individual written notice to all persons whose names stand in existing revenue records is mandatory and mutation affecting civil consequences cannot be sustained on the basis of vague or unsubstantiated claims of notice. 15. The ratio laid down in Chinnam Pandurangam (supra) squarely applies, holding that both individual notice and opportunity of hearing are indispensable before altering revenue entries. Accordingly, this Court finds that the impugned mutation stands vitiated for violation of audi alteram partem, rendering it arbitrary and illegal. The Tahsildar, in his own counter-affidavit, has categorically stated that their office is only a recording authority. He lacks jurisdiction to review or unsettle concluded tenancy proceedings, including surrender and 38-E certificates and the alleged entry in favour of respondent No.4 in the Dharani portal is unsupported by any available proceedings. Having acknowledged the absence of jurisdiction and supporting records, the action of respondents Nos.2 and 3 in deleting long-standing entries in favour of the petitioners’ amounts to non-application of mind. Moreover, a mutation entry cannot be altered on the basis of unverified online entries, or in the absence of documentary support. The impugned action thus suffers from legal infirmity and procedural impropriety. 16. The rival parties have raised serious and contentious claims regarding validity of surrender proceedings, genuineness of sale deeds, and succession rights of respondent No.4. These issues involve complex questions of fact and title, which cannot be adjudicated by revenue authorities nor conclusively decided in writ proceedings. Even assuming such disputes exist, they do not empower the Tahsildar to unilaterally delete existing entries without following due process. The appropriate remedy for respondent No.4, if aggrieved, lies before the competent civil or statutory forum and not through administrative alteration of revenue records. 17. Even assuming such disputes exist, they do not empower the Tahsildar to unilaterally delete existing entries without following due process. The appropriate remedy for respondent No.4, if aggrieved, lies before the competent civil or statutory forum and not through administrative alteration of revenue records. 17. The arbitrary deletion of the petitioners’ names from revenue records without notice, without hearing, without jurisdiction and without any traceable proceedings amounts abuse of process of law. Further, such action directly interferes with the petitioners’ right to property under Article 300-A, as revenue entries form the basis for enjoyment, alienation and protection of property rights. 18. While respondent No.4 alleges fraud and fabrication of documents by the petitioners, no competent adjudication to that effect exists as on date. Fraud, if any, must be established in accordance with law before a competent forum. Until such adjudication long-standing registered documents and revenue entries cannot be nullified administratively and allegations of fraud cannot be a substitute for statutory procedure. 19. Admittedly, the petitioners have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the schedule property since the date of its purchase i.e. from the year 2006. The claim of the 4 th respondent that her father died in the year 1978 has no legal basis. Even if it is true, the 4 th respondent ought to have taken steps immediately or soon thereafter. Sleeping for nearly two decades, claiming title on the property is not a tenable one because ignorance of law is not an excuse as held in Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited and others Vs. T.P.Nataraj and others , (2021) 12 SCC 27 wherein it was emphatically stated that ignorance of law cannot be an excuse to get out of the applicability of the statutory provisions. Therefore, the 4 th respondent, in my considered view, ought to have filed a civil suit seeking declaration of her title over the property establishing her case before the competent civil Court, because certain proceedings pertaining to the father of the 4 th respondent with regard to obtaining of 38E Certificate and surrendering tenancy rights have taken place. Mere filing a suit for succession and producing a succession certificate will not confer title upon the 4 th respondent because the names of the petitioners are reflecting in the revenue records as on the date of obtaining decree by the 4 th respondent. 20. Mere filing a suit for succession and producing a succession certificate will not confer title upon the 4 th respondent because the names of the petitioners are reflecting in the revenue records as on the date of obtaining decree by the 4 th respondent. 20. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the actions of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 in deleting the petitioners’ names and mutating the name of respondent No.4 is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. The impugned mutation is vitiated by gross violation of principles of natural justice. The revenue authorities acted without jurisdiction and without any supporting proceedings. Disputed questions of title cannot be resolved through unilateral mutation in revenue records. Therefore, in the given circumstances, the petitioners deserve the relief sought for. 21. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned mutation entries in favour of respondent No.4 are hereby set aside, with a direction to restore the petitioners’ names in the revenue records, without prejudice to the rights of parties to work out their remedies before the competent civil or statutory forum. No order as to the costs. 22. Miscellaneous applications if any pending shall also stand dismissed.