THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.26195 OF 2009 DATED JULY, 2010 BETWEEN Pendyala Laxma Reddy And Others. … Petitioners And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep: by District Collector, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar. And Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.26195 OF 2009 ORDER: Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the revenue authorities in carrying out mutation of their names in the revenue records pursuant to the Decree dated 13.11.1992 in O.S.No.904 of 1992 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Karimnagar, the petitioners filed the present case. They sought a consequential direction to carry out the mutation in respect of their land admeasuring Ac.1.22 ½ guntas in Survey No.940 of Kattarampur Village of Karimnagar Mandal and District. It is the case of the petitioners that they purchased the subject land from one Battu Muthyalu and his son, Battu Bhupati, for valid consideration on 10.01.1977 under an agreement of sale. They claim that they were put in possession pursuant to the said agreement. As their vendors sought to interfere with their possession, the petitioners filed O.S.No.904 of 1992 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Karimnagar, seeking declaration of their title in respect of the subject property and a consequential perpetual injunction against their vendors. It is stated that after contest the suit was decreed on 13.11.1992. The petitioners claim to have made an application on 24.11.1992 to the revenue authorities on the basis of the said Decree seeking mutation of their names in the revenue records. It is stated that pursuant to their representations, the District Collector, Karimnagar, addressed letter dated 29.12.2008 to the Tahsildar, Karimnagar, asking him to conduct a detailed enquiry and take appropriate action. However, upon their application dated 21.10.2009 to the Tahsildar, Karimnagar, the petitioners were informed by letter dated 24.10.2009 that the mutation had not been carried out. Hence, they filed the present writ petition. By interim order dated 02.12.2009, this Court directed the revenue authorities to take steps to implement the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.904 of 1992 for the purpose of mutation of the petitioners’ names in the revenue records in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1.22 ½ guntas in Survey No.940 of Kattarampur Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District after conducting a detailed enquiry in the matter. It is stated that pursuant to the aforestated direction, the Tahsildar, Karimnagar, issued proceedings dated 03.02.2010 directing mutation of the petitioners’ names in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1.22 ½ guntas in Survey No.940 of Kattarampur Village, Karimnagar Revenue Mandal. While so, it is the case of the fourth respondent who got himself impleaded in this writ petition that the father of the petitioners sold an extent of Ac.0.23 guntas out of the subject land in Survey No.940 of Kattarampur Village to him and his family members in March, 1998 under registered sale deeds. He further stated that his family members executed registered gift settlement deeds in his favour whereby he became the absolute owner of the extent of Ac.0.23 guntas in Survey No.940 of Kattarampur Village. The fourth respondent further stated that the petitioners herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.40 of 2009 on the file of the District Judge, Karimnagar, against him and his family members seeking declaration of title and a perpetual injunction in respect of the subject extent of Ac.0.23 guntas. They also sought a declaration that the sale deeds executed in favour of the fourth respondent and his family members were null and void. The suit is said to be pending. The fourth respondent complains that suppressing the factum of filing of the suit on 26.11.2009 the petitioners approached this Court by way of the present writ petition on 30.11.2009 and obtained interim orders on 02.12.2009. He therefore asserts that the petitioners are not entitled to claim any rights in respect of the subject extent of Ac.0.23 guntas sold by the petitioners’ father in the year 1998 which eventually came to be his absolute property. He is therefore aggrieved by the direction of this Court to carry out mutation in favour of the petitioners in respect of the total extent of Ac.1.22 ½ guntas in Survey No.940 of Kattarampur Village and seeks vacation of the interim order dated 02.12.2009. Heard Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri D.Goverdhana Chary, learned counsel for the fourth respondent and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the first, second and third respondents, the revenue authorities. With the consent of the learned counsel, the main writ petition itself is being disposed of by way of the present order. The facts stated hereinabove clearly demonstrate that the rights of the parties inter se are being adjudicated by the competent Civil Court. Presently, the only issue before this Court is with regard to the mutation carried out in the revenue records and the effect thereof upon the rights of the parties. The fourth respondent herein was not a party to the suit in O.S.No.904 of 1992 and the Judgment and Decree therein therefore have no bearing on him. He claims independent rights as regards Ac.0.23 guntas in Survey No.940 of Kattarampur Village basing on the alienations said to have been made by the petitioners’ father in the year 1998. The petitioners themselves sought nullification of the said sale transactions in the suit, O.S.No.40 of 2009. In this regard, reference may be made to Section 8(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971: “8.Bar of Suits (1) ……….. (2) If any person is aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963) and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration.” In the present case, though the petitioners filed a suit for declaration of their title as against the fourth respondent and his family members and also for invalidation of the sale transactions in their favour made by their father, they have also obtained mutation in the revenue records in their favour pursuant to the interim order of this Court. In the light of the above statutory provision, the entry in the record of rights is subject to the decision of the competent Civil Court and such entries must necessarily be amended in accordance with the declarations of the Civil Court. In such view of the matter, notwithstanding the mutation directed by the Tahsildar, Karimnagar, in his proceedings dated 03.02.2010, the same would necessarily be subject to the decision in the civil proceedings initiated by the petitioners through O.S.No.40 of 2009. This would of course be limited only to the extent of Ac.0.23 guntas claimed by the fourth respondent on the basis of the alienations said to have been made by the petitioners’ father in the year 1998. Such mutation in respect of this limited extent of Ac.0.23 guntas would therefore have to abide by the decision and declaration in the civil proceedings. Pending the disposal of the civil proceedings, it would not be proper for the petitioners to take advantage of the entries in the revenue records in so far as this extent of Ac.0.23 guntas is concerned. However, as the Tahsildar, Karimnagar, has carried out the mutation for the total extent by his proceedings dated 03.02.2010 pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the same shall not be disturbed but the petitioners are enjoined not to take advantage of the entries so made and await the decision in the civil proceedings with regard to the declaration of their rights. No steps whatsoever shall be initiated on the basis of the entries in the revenue records made pursuant to the Tahsildar’s proceedings dated 03.02.2010 in so far as the disputed extent of Ac.0.23 guntas is concerned pending the decision in the civil proceedings. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforestated directions. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. __________ JULY, 2010. PGS