THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4501 of 2010 11.06.2010 Between: Polasi Seshagiri Rao, And another. ...Petitioners And The District Collector, Krishna at Machilipatnam, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4501 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners challenge the issue of pattadar pass books (hereafter called, PPBs) by respondents 2 and 3, namely, Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada (RDO) and Tahsildar, Nandivada, respectively, in favour of respondents 4 and 5 in respect of land admeasuring Acs.2.26 in survey No.116/2 of Polasivari Palem, Hamlet of Aripirala Village of Nandivada Mandal in Krishna District (hereafter referred to as, subject land). The affidavit in support of the writ petition is filed by first petitioner. He alleges that the subject land originally belonged to his great-grandfather by name Seshanna who had got patta prior to independence. When there was interference from several persons including respondents 4 and 5 he made an application for obtaining copies of adangals and other revenue records in March 1982. He was not given. He, therefore, approached the District Legal Services Authority by filing PLC.No.63 of 2007 against respondents 2 and 3. The said authority disposed of the same observing that adangals will be issued to him from 1982 onwards. The petitioner then deposited necessary amounts by way of Challans for obtaining copies of entries in Form I-B register (presumably prepared under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (ROR Act)). But still respondents 4 and 5 tried to interfere with the land alleging that they obtained PPBs and title deeds from the revenue authorities. First petitioner made enquiries and found that Tahsildar issued PPBs to respondents 4 and 5 without conducting enquires and without following any procedure as contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989. First petitioner sold the land to second petitioner under registered sale deed dated 23.01.2008 bearing document No.250/2008. Second petitioner then made an application to third respondent for PPBs. The latter issued endorsement dated 22.10.2008 to the effect that respondents 4 and 5 were issued PPBs. Therefore, petitioners preferred appeal before second respondent challenging the issue of PPBs by Tahsildar. The same is pending. Even while the same is pending, the present writ petition is filed. Respondents 4 and 5 filed counter affidavit. The averments insofar as relevant for the purpose of disposal of this case are as follows. The writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioners failed to demonstrate the violation of statutory or constitutional rights, and therefore, a writ of Mandamus cannot be issued. PPBs are issued to answering respondents in 1997 and therefore, at this point of time, petitioners cannot assail the same. Petitioners are abusing the process of the Court. They have suppressed the facts which are relevant for the purpose of the writ petition. The first petitioner filed O.S.No.185 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada for perpetual injunction. The said suit was dismissed on 20.07.2004, against which the first petitioner filed A.S.No.19 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Gudivada and the same was dismissed. The petitioners also filed W.P.No.27529 of 2009 before this Court, which was disposed by order dated 17.12.2009 directing the RDO to dispose of the appeal filed by first petitioner herein against the endorsement, dated 22.10.2008. The petitioners again filed the instant writ petition suppressing the facts. The petitioners have no right to claim the land and all the allegations and contentions of first petitioner that he is the owner of the land has been rejected by the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada. Respondents 4 and 5 have also enclosed various documents like Xerox copies of Adangal, PPBs in support of the contention of their ownership and possession. The Judgment of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge and Court of the Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Gudivada, have also annexed to the counter affidavit filed along with W.V.M.P. This Court heard counsel for petitioners and counsel for respondent 4 and 5 as well as Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area) for respondents 1 to 3. Though the counsel for petitioners after raising various contentions regarding the illegalities or improprieties committed by Tahsildar in granting PPBs to respondents 4 and 5 and not entertaining the request of the second petitioner to grant PPBs, ultimately made only request that the RDO may be directed to dispose of the appeal. In that view of the matter, the merits of the case cannot be treated as contentious issues nor this Court is inclined to go into the questions. There is no denial that second petitioner purchased the subject land from the first petitioner and applied for PPBs. The same was not entertained and the reason was communicated by endorsement dated 22.10.2008 stating that PPBs were already issued to respondents 4 and 5. Therefore, it is a matter to be decided by the RDO before whom the appeal is pending. Be that as it is, when there was earlier litigation and the petitioners themselves approached this Court earlier, curiously the same, which is very much relevant for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been withheld from this Court. On the principle of suppresio vary suggestio falsi, petitioners cannot be granted any relief. The petitioners may, therefore, approach the RDO for expeditious disposal of their appeal within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. If the petitioners or respondents 4 and 5 are aggrieved by the order of said appellate authority, needless to mention that the remedy is to file revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 11.06.2010 Pln/vs