IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THIS THE 19th DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 W.P.No.24563 of 2009 Between: Mrs. T.Chennakeswari ... PETITIONER(S) and The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.24563 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner claims to have purchased an extent of Ac.5-00 of land in Sy.No.572 situated at Gattuippalapally Village, Thalakondapalli Tahsil, Mahabubnagar District, through a registered sale deed dated 01.02.2006 from one Sri Kyama Yadagiri S/o Mallaiah. The vendor of the petitioner purchased the said land from one Sri Chilver Yadaiah S/o Ramaiah. The revenue records reflect the name of Chilver Yadaiah as Pattadar. After the purchase, the petitioner approached the Tahsildar, Thalakondapalli Mandal – the 3rd respondent with a request to make necessary entries in the Record of Rights as well as to issue pattadar pass book and title deeds. It is stated that initially entries were made in the Record of Rights, but they were tampered. So far as the issuance of the pattadar pass book is concerned, the 3rd respondent addressed a letter dated 23.06.2009 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar – the 2nd respondent, seeking instructions, in view of the rival claims being made for the same land. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the various steps taken by the 3rd respondent as well as his inaction or delay in issuing the pattadar pass book. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleaders for Revenue and General Administration. The Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), prescribes the procedure to be followed whenever pattadar pass books and title deeds are to be issued either at the first instance or as a consequence of transfer of the land. In the instant case, the land that is purchased by the petitioner was initially held by Sri Chilveru Yadaiah in whose favour the entries and pattadar pass book and title deeds exist. He is said to have sold the property in favour of Sri Kyama Yadagiri on 24.01.2006. Within one week thereafter, the petitioner is said to have purchased that property. Had there not been any dispute about the transfers referred to above, and if there did not exist any third party rights, the request made by the petitioner for issuance of pattadar pass book and title deeds would certainly have been acceded to. The records, however, disclose that the very property was purchased by the 4th respondent through an unregistered sale deed dated 14.03.1994. The 4th respondent raised an objection before the 3rd respondent in the context of making entries in the revenue records as well as issuance of pattadar pass book and title deeds. Faced with the situation, the 3rd respondent sought instructions from the 2nd respondent. Legality of such a course apart, the 3rd respondent cannot be expected to arrive at a conclusion about the nature of rights of the parties in the scenario. If the 4th respondent does not raise an objection and endorses the sale in favour of the petitioner, the pattadar pass book and title deeds can be issued in favour of the petitioner. As long as his objection subsists and in case his claim as to ownership and possession exists, the 3rd respondent cannot be expected to take any steps. The Act itself provides remedies in matters of this nature. Any proceedings under the Act would be subject to the adjudication before a Civil Court. Even now, the petitioner can approach a Civil Court to establish her title, duly impleading all the persons who have made a claim against her. In case the suit is decreed, the 3rd respondent shall be under obligation to issue pattadar pass book and title deeds in favour of the petitioner. It is brought to the notice of this Court that feeling aggrieved by the various entries and corrections made by the 3rd respondent in the revenue records, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. It is needless to mention that the 2nd respondent shall take up that appeal and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 19th January 2010 CVRK