IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 10311 of 2000 Between: 1.S.Ramulu, S/o.Channappa, R/o.Marrikal Village, Dhanwada Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 2.Mohammood, S/o.Raj Mohamood, R/o.Marrikal Village, Dhanwada Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 3.Setty Mallesh, S/o.Basava Raj, R/o.Marrikal Village, Dhanwada Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1.The Jiont Collector, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar District. 3.The Mandal Revenue Officer, Dhanwada, Mahabubnagar District. 4.Shetty Siddamma W/o.Bhushaiah R/o.Marrikal Village, Mahabubnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.1 in issuing the impugned orders in Proceedings No. Nil Dt.29-5-2000 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the principles of natural justice and to set-aside the orders of the Jiont Collector, Mahabubngar NO. Nil Dt.29-5-2000 and as well as the orders passed by Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet in No.A/2703/98 Dt.27/2/99. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.Y.ASHOK RAJ Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: MR.N.ASHOK KUMAR The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR Writ Petition No.10311 of 2000 ORDER: The petitioners in this writ petition challenge the order of the learned Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District, dated 29.05.2000, which in turn had confirmed the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 27.02.1999. 02. The main grievance of the petitioners is as follows. They claim that they had purchased total extent Ac.0.12 guntas from one late Baswaraj, who is said to be the adopted son of late Setti Basaiah and Smt.Siddamma. They approached the Mandal Revenue Officer under case No.E.1061/94 for regularization of their private sale deeds under the Section 5-A read with Rule 22 of A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as Act). Under the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 15.12.1996, the said application was allowed, against which, the fourth respondent herein preferred an appeal, being No.A/2703/98, before the Revenue Divisional officer, Narayanpet. It is stated that the said appeal was allowed by the Revenue Divisional Officer under order, dated 27.02.1999, against which, the petitioners preferred revision before the first respondent, the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar. The said revision was dismissed by the Joint Collector by an order, dated 29.04.2000. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 03. The learned counsel for the petitioners primarily contends that after the Mandal Revenue Officer passed the order in their favour, the fourth respondent herein filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet and in view of that, the then Revenue Divisional Officer in proceedings No.A/532/96, dated 08.04.1996, had directed that the authorities under the Act shall await decision by the civil Court. The learned counsel, however, submits that notwithstanding the said endorsement, dated 08.04.1996, the successor Revenue Divisional Officer allowed the revision on 27.02.1999 and later, the Joint Collector has also confirmed the same, which is erroneous. 04. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri N.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. 05. It has been brought to my notice that no doubt the said suit in O.S.No.42 of 1999 was then pending when the Revenue Divisional Officer made the endorsement, dated 08.04.1996, to await decision by the civil Court. However, the said suit was later decreed in favour of the fourth respondent through judgment, dated 27.01.2005. It is also brought to my notice that aggrieved by the decree in the said suit, the petitioners 1 and 3 herein have preferred an appeal, being A.S.No.12 of 2005, before the learned II Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar and the said appeal is said to be pending. 06. In view of these later developments, as the competent civil Court has already adjudicated the rights of the parties and the same is subject matter of a regular civil appeal before the learned II Additional District Judge as above, the proceedings initiated under the Act, therefore, would abide by the decision of the civil Court as provided under Section 9 of the Act. 07. In that view of the matter, nothing really survives in the present proceedings and the revenue authorities shall abide by and give effect to the decision of the civil Court which is now said to be pending in A.S.No.12 of 2005 before the learned II Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar. 08. Therefore, the writ petition does not survive and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ Vilas V.Afzulpurkar, J Dt.27.11.2008. VGB