IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21625 of 2000 Between: Smt.Sourla Chennamma. … Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakadikapool, Hyderabad and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: None Counsel for respondents: AGP for Revenue This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 11-10-1999 passed by respondent No.1. At the hearing there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record. The petitioner, who purchased agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.9.15 guntas in various Survey Numbers of Bomreddypally village, Kulkacherla Mandal, under registered sale deed dated 3-7-1990, approached respondent No.2 for correction of the revenue records and for entering her name therein. Thereupon, respondent No.2 entered the name of the petitioner as pattadar, but mentioned the name of respondent No.3 in the column “Name of the person in actual cultivation” contained in the Pahani. The petitioner questioned the said entry in the revision before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, respondent No.1 herein, but unsuccessfully. Therefore, she filed the present Writ Petition. I have carefully gone through the contents of the order passed by respondent No.1. He had stated therein that the petitioner purchased the said land through registered sale deed dated 3-7-1990 and filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining respondent No.3 from interfering with her possession; that the inspection of the Mandal Revenue Officer revealed that possession was with respondent No.3; and that, therefore, his name was included in the Pahani as the person in occupation. Respondent No.1 also mentioned in his order that O.S.No.39 of 1990 filed by the petitioner against respondent No.3 was dismissed with costs by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Pargi, on 25-9-1998. In her affidavit the petitioner stated that against the said judgment she filed an appeal and the Appellate Court granted an order of status quo. The petitioner failed to indicate the name of the Appellate Court, which granted the interim order of status quo and to file even a copy of that order. The very fact that the civil suit was unsuccessfully filed by the petitioner against respondent No.3 with respect to possession of the property in question itself shows that there is a dispute regarding the possession of the said land between the petitioner and respondent No.3. Unless the petitioner succeeds in the alleged appeal filed by her against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, she cannot find fault with the revenue authorities showing the name of respondent No.3 under the column “Name of the person in actual cultivation”. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ------------------------------------- --- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:30-07-2008 MNR