Judgment:
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in A3/1623/2014 dated 28.07.2014 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the first respondent to restore the patta in RTR 380/2014 dated 09.04.2014 stands in the name of the petitioner and pass further orders as this may deem fit and proper.)
1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in A3/1623/2014 dated 28.07.2014 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the first respondent to restore the patta in RTR 380/2014 dated 09.04.2014 stands in the name of the petitioner.
2. The only point which has been raised by the petitioner is that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no power to directly set aside the order of the Tahsildar for grant of patta and incorporate the other person's name. In this connection, he pointed out that the Revenue Divisional Officer directed to pass an order for cancellation of the patta.
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. It is brought to the notice of this Court as against the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioner should prefer the revision before the District Revenue Officer.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the revision filed before the District Revenue Officer was withdrawn and now, he filed the present writ petition. Though the respondent contended that once the petitioner already invoked the jurisdiction to go before the appellate authority, the writ petition is not maintainable, he would also contend that the Revenue Divisional Officer only passed an order, if appeal is preferred, after hearing both sides the Revenue Divisional Officer shall direct the Tahsildar to file a report and produce the the records. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer has no power to pass orders of his own.
5. First of all, the petitioner has preferred an appeal or revision before the concerned authority, namely, the District Revenue Officer. He preferred a revision on 28.07.2014. Thereafter, he withdraw the writ petition without having any liberty to file again. If he wants to contest the jurisdiction points, if any, he can not come forward with the present writ petition having withdrawn the earlier writ petition without any liberty. Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable.
6. Secondly, the petitioner submits that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no power to alter as he has no power to do the same. The Revenue Divisional Officer cannot directly incorporate/mutate the revenue records, as per the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in W.A(MD) No.78 of 2010 dated 04.10.2010, wherein it is held that after hearing both side parties, the Revenue Divisional Officer has to direct the Tahsildar to further transfer the village accounts.
7. Here, it is a case, where the Revenue Divisional Officer directly suo motu passed such orders. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable even otherwise on merits of the case also. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.