1. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in Revision Case No.F3/3003/2017, on the file of respondent No.1 and to quash the orders dated 03.10.2019 passed in the said Revision, as the same is arbitrary, illegal and opposed to principles of natural justice.

2. Heard Sri C.Ramesh Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, and Sri B.Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 6.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as averred in the writ affidavit, are that the father of petitioner-Ram Reddy and father of respondent Nos.3 to 6-Malla Reddy are brothers; that ancestral properties were divided between them; and in the said partition, various extents of lands in different Survey Numbers situated at Jangama Village, Akkannapet Revenue Mandal, Siddipet Division, as mentioned para-1 of the writ affidavit, fell to the share of Ram Reddy; that after the demise of Ram Reddy, the petitioner and his brother-respondent No.11 were granted succession of subject lands equally, since respondent Nos.7 and 8-sisters and respondent No.10-brother of the petitioner have relinquished their rights in respect of the subject lands; that on application made by the petitioner and his brother-respondent No.11 for mutation of their names in the revenue records, respondent No.9-Tahsildar called for objections from interested persons and in response thereto, as no objections were received, including from respondent Nos.3 to 6, the names of the petitioner and respondent No.11 were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in their favour, vide proceedings No.B1/134/2010, dated 19.03.2010.

               3.1. It is further averred that challenging the said orders, dated 19.03.2010, respondent Nos.3 to 6 preferred Appeal under Section 5-B of the ROR Act, before respondent No.2, and the said Appeal was allowed, vide orders dated 31.07.2017; that questioning the said order, the petitioner and his brother-respondent No.11 filed Revision before respondent No.1; and that the revisional authority-respondent No.1 confirmed the order passed by respondent No.2 in appeal, vide orders dated 03.10.2019, by holding that the appeal is filed within time. Challenging the order passed by respondent No.1, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. Counter is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 6 inter alia contending that Ram Reddy-father of the petitioner, being the elder son of Veera Reddy and kartha of the joint family, all the ancestral properties were recorded in his name, however, the ancestral properties were partitioned among the two brothers-Ram Reddy and Malla Reddy; that respondent Nos.3 to 6 being the sons of Malla Reddy, are in possession and enjoyment of the respective extents of land that fell to the share of their father-Malla Reddy; that petitioner, by playing fraud, got mutated the entire land, including the land that fell to the share of Malla Reddy, in his name.

               4.1. It is further stated that on appeal against the mutation proceedings, respondent No.2 enquired into the matter and allowed the appeal, directing respondent No.9 to delete the name of Ram Reddy from pattadar column; to enquire into the virasath for allotment of half share each to Ram Reddy and Malla Reddy; and to sanction new virasath to the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein. That challenging the order passed by respondent No.2-appellate authority, petitioner filed Revision before respondent No.1, who rightly confirmed the order passed by respondent No.2. Hence, the present Writ Petition filed challenging the order passed by revisional authority is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner principally submitted that even according to respondent Nos.3 to 6, they got knowledge of passing of mutation orders, dated 19.03.2010, in favour of petitioner on 13.03.2012, but, they have chosen to file appeal under Section 5-B of the ROR Act on 25.10.2013, i.e., after a period of 19 months from the date of passing of mutation order; that respondent Nos.3 to 6 have not filed an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal; that though petitioner raised plea that appeal was filed beyond statutory period of 60 days from the date of passing of mutation orders, respondent No.2-appellate authority has not adverted to the said aspect of delay and erroneously set aside the mutation orders passed by respondent No.9.

               5.1. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that respondent No.1-revisional authority erred in holding that the appeal is filed within time and further came to conclusion that respondent Nos.3 to 6 are in possession of lands which fell to the share of their father-Malla Reddy, which is erroneous and beyond the scope of revision and as such, the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is illegal and arbitrary and hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the following judgments of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh:-

               1. M.B.Ratnam and others Vs. RDO, RR District (2003(1) ALT 688 (D.B.))

               2. Katta Andamma and Ors Vs. Joint Collector, Warangal District and Ors (2017(2) ALT 313 (S.B.))

               3. Krishtappa and Ors. Vs. Joint Collector and Additional District Magistarte, Anatnapur and Ors (2014(4) ALT 767 (SB))

               4. Vutukuru Subba rao and Ors Vs. State of A.P., rep by its Revenue Secretary and Ors (2014(5) ALT 733 (SB))

               6.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission that the appeal has to be filed within the time prescribed under the relevant Act and Rules, has relied upon the judgment rendered in M.B Ratnam’s case (cited supra) and Katta Andamma’s case (cited supra).

               6.2. In M.B.Ratnam’s case (cited supra), it is held that in the absence of communication of the orders by the Mandal Revenue Officer as required under the Rules, the appeal under Section 5-B of the R.O.R. Act, by an aggrieved person is required to be filed within a reasonable time from the date of knowledge of the order.

               6.3. In Katta Andamma’s case (cited supra), it is held that an appeal against the order passed by Mandal Revenue Officer shall lie before the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub-Collector/Assistant Collector or such authority as may be notified by the Commissioner under sub section-(5) of Section 5 of the ROR Act, 1971, within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of order.

               6.4. In Krishtappa’s case (cited supra) it is held that it is a settled principle that where a statute prescribes a particular manner to be followed, then it shall only be done in the manner prescribed. Therefore, an appeal filed in violation of the said procedure cannot be entertained.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 6 submitted that that there was no delay in filing the appeal by respondent Nos.3 to 6 and the appeal was filed within time from the date of knowledge of mutation/ succession orders obtained by the petitioner; that respondent No.2 after due enquiry and having heard both the parties, held that rythu pass books issued under ROR Rules, 1978 during 1978-79 shows the subject lands in the possession of both Ram Reddy and Malla Reddy, which is conclusive evidence and accordingly, rightly allowed the appeal, vide orders dated 31.07.2017, setting aside the orders of respondent No.9 mutating the entire land in the name of petitioner.

               7.1. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 6 further submitted that during the pendency of the Revision, pursuant to remand by respondent No.2-appellate authority, the Mandal Revenue Inspector conducted enquiry and submitted report and basing on the said report, respondent No.9 ordered for mutation of respective lands to the legal heirs of Ram Reddy and Malla Reddy, vide orders dated 11.12.2017, and pursuant thereto, the names of respondent Nos.3 to 6 were mutated in the revenue records, vide proceedings dated 17.02.2018 and pattadar pass books and title deeds were also issued to them; and the said orders attained finality, inasmuch as they were not challenged by petitioner and respondent Nos.10 and 11.

               7.2. He further submitted that on revision, respondent No.1-revisional authority on verification of the records, came to conclusion that respondent Nos.3 to 6 are in possession of various extents of lands that fell to the share of their father-Malla Reddy and hence, rightly held that orders of respondent No.9 mutating the entire land in favour of the petitioner and respondent Nos.10 and 11 are invalid and accordingly, confirmed the order passed by respondent No.2-appeallte authority.

               7.3. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 6 further submitted that the petitioner failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court and hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 6 relied upon the following judgments:-

               1. Addanki China Ranganayakulu Vs. Pasala Pullaiah and another (1989(1) ALR 161)

               2. Pochi Reddy Vs. RDO, Vikarabad and Ors (2004(4) ALD 77)

               3. Chinnam Pandurangam Vs. MRO, Serilingampally Mandal and Ors (2007(6) ALD 348 (FB))

               4. Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shah Deo Vs. State of Bihar and Ors ((1999) 8 SCC 16)

               5. Bhagmal and Ors Vs. Kunwar Lal and Ors ((2010) 12 SCC 159)

               6. S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath (dead) by LRs and Ors ((1994) 1 SCC 1)

               8.1. In Addanki China Ranganayakulu’s case (cited supra), it is held that the period of limitation under Article-131 would not run from the date of order but from the date of knowledge of the order sought to revised by the person affected by the order who was not a party to the proceedings in which the order was passed.

               8.2. In Pochi Reddy’s case (cited supra), it is held that no order can be allowed to stand if obtained by fraud (see 1964 SC 72 Para 5) and fraud unravels everything.

               8.3. In Chinnam Pandurangam’s case (cited supra), it is held that notice shall be issued to all persons whose names are entered in the revenue records and who are interested in or affected by the proposed amendment.

9. The judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo V. State of Bihar11 is as regards refund of excess compensation paid under Bihar Land Reforms (Validation and Amendment) Act, 1974, which is not at all relevant for deciding the subject lis between the parties and hence, the principle laid down therein is not adverted to.

10. In Bhagmal’s case (cited supra), it is held that when a defendant files an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside an ex parte decree, delay can be condoned even without a separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, if the said application has all ingredients of application for condonation of delay. If the defendant proves that he had no knowledge of the ex parte proceedings or decree, that itself is a sufficient cause for delay. Courts should decide such matters on substantive justice rather than technicalities, and not reject applications on hyper technical grounds.

11. In S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu’s case (cited supra), it is held that a judgment or decree obtained by fraud is a nullity and it has no legal validity. Such a decree can be challenged at any stage, even in collateral proceedings. A party who approaches the court must come with clean hands and suppression of material facts amounts to fraud.

12. This Court has thoroughly gone through the aforesaid judgments relied upon by Learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 6 vis-à-vis the facts and circumstances of the present case.

13. A close scrutiny of the record reveals that the mutation orders are admittedly not communicated to respondent Nos.3 to 6. It is the case of respondent Nos.3 to 6 that they came to know about passing of mutation orders in favour of petitioner on 13.03.2012. Respondent No.1 in the impugned order categorically observed that respondent Nos.3 to 6 on being aware of the mutation orders on 13.03.2012, immediately, filed an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer to enquire into illegal sanction of succession. However, the details of the said proceedings were not given. It seems that initially, respondent Nos.3 to 6 instead of challenging the mutation orders by filing an appeal, have filed an application before the RDO to enquire into the illegal sanction of succession.

14. It seems that respondent Nos.3 to 6 having realized that they filed application seeking to enquire into the illegal sanction of succession before a wrong authority, thereafter filed another application seeking similar relief on 22.03.2013 before the Tahsildar. On such application being filed by respondent Nos.3 to 6, the Tahsildar, being the primary authority is competent and empowered to enquire into the matter enquired into the matter by issuing notices to all the concerned and submitted a report dated 29.07.2013 to the RDO recommending for cancellation of illegal mutation, but as the same was kept pending, respondent Nos.3 to 6 filed Appeal before the RDO on 25.10.2013.

15. Thus, it appears that respondent Nos.3 to 6 have been prosecuting the case before the revenue authorities from the date of their knowledge about passing of mutation orders in favour of petitioner, be it before the wrong authority in the form of application to enquire into the sanction of succession. In fact respondent Nos.3 to 6 have acted promptly on coming to know about the mutation orders passed in favour of petitioner.

16. The ratio laid down in Katta Andamma’s case (cited supra) and M.B.Ratnam’s case (cited supra) as regards limitation, is duly followed by respondent Nos.3 to 6. The proposition laid down in Addanki China Ranganayakulu’s case (cited supra) is squarely applicable to the present case. Hence, it can be said that the Appeal filed by respondent Nos.3 to 6 is within the period of limitation as prescribed under the ROR Act, as was rightly observed by respondent No.1 in the impugned order.

17. For the foregoing reasons, the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that the Appeal filed by respondent Nos.3 to 6 belatedly, that too, without filing an application for condonation of delay, was wrongly allowed by respondent No.2 is unsustainable. Respondent No.1-revisional authority has minutely gone into the case as regards the objection raised by petitioner herein before him that the appeal is time barred and has rightly concluded that the Appeal is filed within the prescribed period of limitation.

18. As regards issuance of notice to all the concerned or interested parties, both the appellate and revisional authorities have categorically observed that the Tahsildar-primary authority on application made by the petitioner, has mutated the entire land in the name of petitioner without following the due procedure under Section 5(3) of the ROR Act. Section 5(3) of the ROR Act mandates issuance of notice to all interested or affected parties before amending the Record of Rights (ROR). Respondent Nos.3 to 6 are admittedly interested and affected parties, however, no notice was issued to them, as such, they were denied of the opportunity of submitting objections and putting forth their case before the Tahsildar. Hence, the mutation orders passed by the Tahsildar is contrary to the judgment rendered in Chinnam Pandurangam’s case (cited supra).

19. The Tahsildar has acted contrary to the procedure prescribed under the ROR Act while effecting mutation in favour of petitioner. Hence, respondent No.2-appellate authority has rightly set aside the mutation orders, which was rightly confirmed in Revision by respondent No.1 vide the impugned order.

20. Thus, in view of the aforesaid reasons and discussion, this Court holds that the petitioner failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and hence, the Writ Petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.

21. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

22. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.