THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27697 of 2008 ORDER: Through order, dated 07.08.1990, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ibrahimpatnam, made certain entries in favour of the petitioner herein in respect of the lands in various survey numbers of Mangalpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal. The 2nd respondent is said to be the purchaser of some of the said lands. Feeling aggrieved by the entries made on 07.08.1990, he filed an appeal before the Special Grade Deputy Collector-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy, East Division, 1st respondent herein, in the year 2007 with an application for condonation of delay. After issuing notice to the petitioner, the 1st respondent condoned the delay, through docket order dated 18.10.2008. The petitioner challenges the condonation of delay as well as the very institution of the appeal by the 2nd respondent. It is stated that the 2nd respondent himself filed O.S.No.1131 of 2007 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, for the relief of declaration of title and in that view of the matter, the appeal itself is untenable or redundant. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. It is no doubt true that the 2nd respondent felt aggrieved by the proceedings dated 07.08.1990, through which the Mandal Revenue Officer made certain entries in favour of the petitioner. In such an event, two courses of action are open to him. The first is to avail the remedy of appeal under the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act (for short ‘the Act’) and the second is to file a suit, which, once again, is traceable to Section 8(2) of the Act. However, the 2nd respondent has chosen to adopt both courses of action. One of them has to give way, to the other. Section 8(2) of the Act itself mandates that it shall always be open to an aggrieved party to file a suit and all the proceedings that have taken place under the Act would be subject to the outcome of that suit. Once the 2nd respondent has chosen a comprehensive remedy, the appeal preferred by him before the 1st respondent is nugatory and superfluous. Secondly, before condoning delay, more than a decade, the 1st respondent was under the obligation to state the reasons on account of which he was satisfied. Except stating that the delay is condoned, he did not say anything on this matter. Now that the 2nd respondent filed a suit, the appeal itself becomes untenable. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 18.10.2008, is set aside. It is made clear that the entries made in favour of the petitioner though proceedings dated 07.08.1990 shall be subject to the outcome of O.S.No.1131 of 2007 pending in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 16.02.2009 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27697 of 2008 Date: 16.02.2009 JSU