THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No :26403 of 2007 DATED:17-01-2008 BETWEEN: Chigurupati Raghavulu Naidu. ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Chittoor District & 4 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 2. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not taking note of the facts brought to their notice by the petitioner’s notice, dated 20-11-2007, and their attempt to change the entries in the revenue records and issue pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the 5th respondent, as wholly arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has purchased an extent of Ac.2.45 ½ cents of land in various survey numbers situated at Thondawada village, Chandragiri mandal, Chittoor District vide unregistered sale deed executed by one Chennapatnam Kailasanadha Rao on 14-06-1960 and the said Kailasanadha Rao executed a simple registered mortgage deed in favour of one Yellappa Naidu for a sum of Rs.10,000/- in 1971 and the petitioner was cultivating the said land at that time. The said Naidu transferred the mortgage deed in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner paid the said amount to him, but the said Kailasanadha Rao failed to execute the sale deed having received the entire sale consideration. It is stated that the said Kailasanadha Rao died in 1991 and the 4th respondent is the legal heir of the said Kailasanadha Rao and therefore petitioner filed O.S.No.380 of 2007 for declaration of title and in the meantime 4th respondent alienated the said land in favour of the 5th respondent on 31-05-2007. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 4. A perusal of the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.1843 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi goes to show that the said suit has been filed against the 4th respondent alone for grant of permanent injunction restraining the 4th respondent from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment. 5th respondent is not a party to the suit, and the 4th respondent alienated the said land in favour of the 5th respondent. It is stated that the petitioner made a representation before the 1st respondent-District Collector on 20-11-2007 not to make any entries in the revenue records in the name of the 5th respondent pending disposal of O.S.No.1843 of 2007 which was re-numbered as O.S.No.380 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi. 5. I am of the opinion that having filed the suit against the 4th respondent for mere grant of injunction and not for declaration of title, in which the 5th respondent is not a party and there was no order prohibiting or restraining him from alienating the said land, petitioner is not entitled for any relief from this Court. However, it is always open for the petitioner to get appropriate orders in the pending suit, and if any representation, dated 20-11-2007, is received by the respondents 2 and 3, they may consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law while making necessary entries in the revenue records and issuing pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the persons who are entitled for the same. 6. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 17th January, 2008. Tsy