THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.25962 OF 2007 DATED: 05.11.2009 Between: K. Sambasiva Rao .. Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Medak District, Sanga Reddy and others. .. Respondents ORDER: Petitioner claims that he purchased the land in an extent of Ac.1.21½ gts. in different parts of Sy.No.372 situated at Isnapur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District, under a registered sale deed dated 24.10.2005, and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same ever since the date of purchase, and pattadar passbooks and title deeds have also been issued in his favour, duly mutating the concerned revenue records. While so, the 4th respondent is stated to have filed a suit in O.S.No.131 of 2007 against the petitioner and his vendors, for declaration of its right and title over the subject property, alleging that it purchased the subject property from the vendors of the petitioner under a registered sale deed. The petitioner states that, initially, in the said suit, the Civil Court ordered the parties to maintain status quo, but however, subsequently vacated the said order and the suit is still pending. He further states that his vendors have also filed O.S.No.292 of 2007, seeking to cancel the registered sale deed alleged to have been executed by them in favour of the 4th respondent, and the said suit is also still pending. Further, the 4th respondent seems to have also filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, under Section 5 (5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, questioning the proceedings bearing No.B/857/2007 issued by the 3rd respondent- Tahsildar, Patancheru Mandal, ordering mutation of the revenue records pertaining to the subject land in favour of the petitioner. But, the 2nd respondent rejected the said appeal on 10.10.2007, holding that the same cannot be taken up as the subject matter is pending before the Civil Court. Aggrieved by the same, the 4th respondent carried the matter in revision before the 1st respondent- Joint Collector, Medak District, who passed an interim order on 25.10.2007, staying the operation of the order of the 2nd respondent impugned in the revision, and posted the case for hearing on 29.11.2007. The petitioner contends that, on receipt of the said order dated 25.10.2007, he came to know about filing of revision by the 4th respondent, and, while he was preparing to appear before the 1st respondent on 29.11.2007, the 1st respondent, in the meanwhile, surprisingly passed the impugned order dated 12.11.2007, in continuation of the order dated 25.10.2007, ordering suspension of the operation of the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in his favour until further orders. The petitioner complains that the 1st respondent, having posted the matter for hearing on 29.11.2007, is not justified in issuing the impugned order in the meanwhile, and, without deciding the matter on merits by affording an opportunity to him to put forth his case, the 1st respondent has no power or authority to suspend the operation of the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in his favour by the 3rd respondent, pending consideration of the revision. While admitting the writ petition on 06.12.2007, this Court, by order in W.P.M.P.No.33856 of 2007, granted interim suspension of the impugned order pending disposal of the writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, along with the vacate stay petition seeking to vacate the aforesaid interim order, it is stated that, before the 1st respondent, the 4th respondent sought for stay of the operation of the order dated 10.10.2007 of the 2nd respondent as well as the operation of the pattadar passbook and title deed issued in favour of the petitioner. Though the 1st respondent granted interim stay, by mistake, the stay of operation of pattadar passbook and title deed issued in favour of the petitioner was not reflected in the order dated 25.10.2007 passed by the 1st respondent and only stay of operation of the order of the 2nd respondent was reflected, and on noticing the said mistake, the 4th respondent filed a memo before the 1st respondent, bringing to his notice the mistake occurred, and thereupon the 1st respondent passed the impugned order dated 12.11.2007, in continuation of the order dated 25.10.2007. It is further stated that the impugned order is only an interim order and the petitioner can agitate his grievance before the 1st respondent. Heard the learned counsel on record. Admittedly, civil suits are pending between the parties with regard to the title of the subject property and for that reason the 2nd respondent refused to entertain the appeal filed by the 4th respondent. It is to be noted that the orders dated 25.10.2007 and 12.11.2007 were passed by the 1st respondent, even before the petitioner entered appearance in the revision. However, since the revision is pending before the 1st respondent, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with appropriate directions for its disposal. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the revision preferred by the 4th respondent, against the order dated 10.10.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and till such time, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 5th November, 2009 IBL