IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 826 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 27/04/2009 in WP NO : 18826 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 K.Nageshwar Rao S/o.Late K.Ramachandraiah R/o.3-4-308/12, Opp: Basanth Talkies, Lingampally Kachiguda, Hyderabad 2 K.Ramesh Chandra Vidyasagar S/o. Late K.Ramachadraiah Permanent Resident of 3-4-308/12, Opp:Basanth Talkies, Lingampally,Kachiguda, Hyderabad, Rep.by his GPA Holder K.Siva Laxmi, W/o.Late K.Ramachandraiah Aged about 61 years, Occ:Household, 3 K.Jyothi Laxmi D/o.Late K. Ramachandraiah R/o.16-11-740/A , Gaddiannaram, Dilsukhnagar Hyderabad, Rep. By GPA holder K.Siva Laxmi, W/o.late K.Ramachandraiah, aged about 61 years, Occ:Household R/o.3-4-308/12,Opp:Basanth Talkies, Lingampally ,Kachiguda 4 K.Siva Laxmi W/o.Late K.Ramachandraiah, R/o.3- 4-308/2, Opp:Basanth Talkies, Lingampally Kachiguda, Hyderabad ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division Ranga Reddy District at Attapur 2 The Mandal Revenue officer, shankarpalli Mandal Ranga Reddy District 3 Lakshmaiah S/o.Late Seetaramaiah R/o.H.No.16-10-125, Old Malakpet Hyderabad- 500036 4 The Joint Collector-1, Ranga Reddy District Khairathabad,Lakadikapool, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.M.GOVIND REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) Aggrieved by the order dated 27.04.2009 made in WPMP No.24507 of 2008 in WP No. 18826 of 2008 by a learned Single Judge dismissing the interlocutory application under which the relief of suspension of the revisional order passed by the second respondent – Primary Authority dated 8.12.2005 recording the name of the third respondent in the revenue records, was sought. It is case of the appellants that late Ramchandraiah, who is father of the appellants 1 to 3 and husband of the fourth appellant, was the absolute owner and possessor of the property to an extent of Ac.33.04 guntas in Sy. No.328 and 333, Elvarthi village, Shankarpalli Mandal, Rangareddy District, whereas it is the case of the third respondent that his father is the absolute owner of the said property and a suit O.S. No. 26 of 2006 was also filed which is pending on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District. The second respondent on an application by the third respondent, made entries in the revenue records and issued pattedar passbook and title deeds to the third respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants herein filed an appeal before the first respondent contending that the second respondent has not followed process of law under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the first respondent rejected the same by an order dated 16.9.2006, assailing which the appellants herein have preferred a revision before the 4th respondent under Sec. 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, who declined to exercise the revisional jurisdiction on the ground that the suit OS No.26 of 2006 is pending adjudication. In the said premise the learned Single Judge dismissed the application observing that since the main writ petition is directed against the order of the fourth respondent – revisional authority, the validity of that order would have be gone into and, therefore, any interim pronouncement can not be made, as regard the order of the second respondent. As can be seen from the factual matrix, the writ petition assailing the order of the fourth respondent – Revisional Authority filed by the appellants is pending and a parallel proceeding in O.S. No. 26 of 2006 on the file of the II Addl. District Judge, Rangareddy is also pending. In this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge is right in observing that no interim order, even ad-interim, can be passed. Therefore, it is for the parties to agitate their rights in the suit OS No. 26 of 2006 on the file of the II Addl. District Judge, Rangareddy District. We accordingly confirm the finding of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the Writ Appeal, being devoid of merit. No order as to costs. However, the Registry is directed to post the Writ Petition No. 18826 of 2008 for final hearing on 17.08.2009 before the learned Single Judge having roster. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar June 24, 2009 MAS.