THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 18303 of 2009 Oral order: By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting respondent No.1 from entertaining C.M.A. No. 54 of 2008 in the light of the order dated 03.10.1988 passed by respondent No. 3, who the petitioner claims is superior to respondent No.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 lost her case against the petitioner, when by virtue of the orders dated 03.10.1988, the right, title and ownership of the petitioner in respect of the land in question stood confirmed. That in pursuance of the said orders, the revenue officials have also put him in possession of the property in question and also issued pattadar pass book. While the matters stand thus, the petitioner states that respondent No.2, who lost her case, after lapse of nearly 30 years, filed appeal in C.M.A. No. 54 of 2008 before respondent No.2, who having entertained the same is issuing notices to the petitioner to appear before him. The petitioner states that respondent No.1, namely Agent to the Government, being an officer inferior to respondent No.3, namely the Commissioner of Survey and Settlement and Land Records, in the teeth of the passed by respondent No.3, ought not to have entertained the C.M.A. Hence, he seeks appropriate directions to respondent No.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ averments. The relief prayed by the petitioner in the writ petition is misconceived and cannot be granted. If according to the petitioner, the right, title and ownership in respect of the land in question stood confirmed in his favour, by virtue of the orders of respondent No.3, nothing prevents him from entering his appearance in appeal in C.M.A. No. 54 of 2008 and putting forth his case before respondent No.1. However, the petitioner without bringing these facts to the notice of respondent No.1, has filed this writ petition seeking Writ of Prohibition, which cannot be granted. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner, however, is at liberty to put forth his case, which he sought to project in this writ petition, by entering his appearance in the appeal and filing counter. Thereupon, respondent No.1 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 2nd September, 2009 KSR