- (1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking Writ of Certiorari to set aside the order dt.13.08.2019 in Case No.E/976/2018 passed by respondent No.2 - Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Banswada Mandal, Kamareddy District (Appellate Authority) in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5(5) of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for brevity "the ROR Act"?), whereby and whereunder the 2nd respondent - Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal setting aside the mutation order passed by the 3rd respondent - Tahsildar in favour of the petitioner vide Proc.No.ROR/2/2006 in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.2.07 guntas in Sy.No.78/1U, situated at Baswapally Village shivar of Nasrullabad Mandal, Kamareddy District.
(2.) The petitioner is absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land to an extent of Acs.2.07 guntas in Sy.No.78/1U, situated at Baswapally Village shivar of Nasrullabad Mandal, Kamareddy District, having obtained the same by way of oral gift executed by her mother and the name of the petitioner has been mutated in the Revenue records and also in Pahani Patrikas from the year 2006-07 to 2017-18 by issuing title deed and Pattadar Pass Book vide proceedings No.ROR/2/2006 issued by respondent No.3 - Tahsildar, Nasrullabad Mandal, Kamareddy District.
(3.) Questioning the said mutation order, unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 8 herein, who are own brothers of the petitioner, have preferred an appeal under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act before the 2nd respondent - RDO, claiming share in the said land, being the legal heirs of late Afzal Begum, mother of the petitioner, and the said appeal was allowed by respondent No.2 - RDO vide impugned order dt.13.08.2019, thereby setting aside the mutation granted in favour of the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the Tahsildar concerned stated in his report that the record relating to the mutation granted in favour of the petitioner is not traceable, even without looking into the file relating to the transfer of land in her favour, the conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Authority that the mutation granted in favour of the petitioner was not in accordance with law, is unjustified and contrary to the procedure laid down under the ROR Act.;