THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9234 of 2010 April 22, 2010 Between: Gandeed Kashimappa, S/o.Ashappa … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad And another ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9234 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner filed instant writ petition challenging Panchanama recorded by third respondent, namely, Mandal Revenue Inspector, Maddur, on 08.10.2009. By the said panchanama, third respondent recorded that one Babu, S/o.Ashanna, and the petitioner herein are in possession in equal shares. It is the case of petitioner that his father Ashappa was the owner of land admeasuring Acs.7.08 guntas comprised in various survey numbers situated at Dorepally Village of Maddur Mandal in Mahabubnagar District. According to him, father gifted properties to petitioner and his mother, Pentamma, jointly and with her consent petitioner got mutated his name in the revenue records. He also alleges that his father also executed another gift deed on 01.6.2009. Fourth respondent has nothing to do with petitioner’s family but he filed appeal against mutation before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet. The appellate authority passed orders on 22.4.2009 staying the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Maddur, and the appeal is pending. In the mean while, petitioner and his mother filed O.S.No.83 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal, against fourth respondent and others for permanent injunction. Fourth respondent filed written statement referring to the Panchanama dated 08.10.2009 recorded by third respondent. Therefore, they filed instant writ petition contending that recording of Panchanama by third respondent without notice to petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. This Court heard the counsel for petitioner and Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area). As rightly pointed out by the latter, mere recording of Panchanama does not in any manner affect the rights and unless and until competent authority i.e., the Tahsildar issues proceedings recording possession, a writ petition would not lie. This Court finds force in the submission. As the matter is pending before the Civil Court, petitioner can always produce independent evidence to show the possession to the land. It may be true that fourth respondent might produce Panchanama before the Court below but the Panchanama itself may not be conclusive proof of possession. The Civil Court has to consider all the documents independently and pass necessary orders. In a writ petition, Panchanama cannot be challenged without there being a consequential order merely because the suit is pending between the parties. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) April 22, 2010 YS