that as the appellants before him had no notice of the primary proceedings nor was the impugned order communicated to them, they could not be held to have instituted the appeal beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. On merits, the 2nd respondent appellate authority found that mutation was effected by the Mandal Revenue Officer without following the due process and without issuing notice to the affected parties. Accordingly by the order dated 15-04-2003 the 2nd respondent allowed the appeal of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners preferred a revision to the 1st respondent under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. The 1st respondent rejected the revision by the order impugned recording on merits that the petitioners had misrepresented the relevant facts to the Mandal Revenue Officer in respect of the lands in survey Nos. 45 and 46 and 123/EE; and that the pattedar passbook and title deed were issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer in favour of the petitioners irregularly and unlawfully. The 1st respondent concurred with the appellate conclusions of the 2nd respondent. As a consequence of the 2nd and 1st respondents orders referred to above, the pattedar passbook and title deed issued in favour of the petitioners in respect of the lands in question have been nullified. If the petitioners seek declaration of title or are aggrieved by any of the entries made or not made in the records of rights, they have available a remedy by way of approaching the civil Court of competent jurisdiction seeking declaratory relief under Chapter-VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a remedy which is preserved by the provisions of Section 8 (2) of the Act. In the aforesaid circumstances and as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners seek to
