THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.1349 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner states that she is the owner of the land in Survey No.340/32, 71 and 75 of Tunki Bollaram Village, Mulugu Mandal, Medak District. When the officials of the Revenue Department disputed her title and tried to interfere with her possession, she filed O.S.No.154 of 2006 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction. The suit was decreed on 26.03.2009. It is stated that no appeal has been filed against the decree so far. The petitioner filed an application, dated 18.01.2010 before the 2nd respondent with a request to issue ownership certificate for the land referred to above. The 2nd respondent addressed a letter dated 20.01.2010 to the petitioner stating that the land belongs to Government and it would not be possible for him to issue ownership certificate. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner did not mention the provision of law under which she filed the application before the 2nd respondent. The only way through which the 2nd respondent can certify the ownership of the petitioner is by issuing pattadar pass book and title deeds as contemplated under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act (for short ‘the Act’). While issuing those documents, the Tahsildar has to follow the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The certificate requested for by the petitioner does not fit into the scheme of the Act and the Rules. It may be true that the petitioner is armed with a decree for declaration in which her title is declared and injunction is granted. However, it was not at all advisable for her to approach one of the defendants in the suit to certify her ownership, particularly when such an exercise is not referable to any provision of law. Across the Bar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the certificate became necessary for production before the authorities in a different State and that the letter addressed by the 2nd respondent is coming in the way of enjoyment of the petitioner over the land. He submits that the application itself is permitted to be withdrawn, in the event of which the impugned order also would become redundant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that in view of the representation made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client withdraws the very application, dated 18.01.2010, the impugned letter dated 20.01.2010 stands set aside as redundant. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 29.01.2010 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.1349 of 2010 Date: 29.01.2010 JSU