THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9954 of 2010 28.04.2010 Between: Rongala Vijaya Kumari And another … Petitioners And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram, East Godavari District And others. ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9954 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners assail the order dated 31.03.2010 of first respondent whereby and whereunder purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 5(5) and 5-B of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (the Act, for brevity). First respondent disposed of the appeal filed by third respondent observing that the rival parties may approach the civil Court for adjudication of their rights to the property in question. The case of petitioners is as follows. Rongala Subba Rao statedly father-in-law of petitioners had purchased Acs.4.00 known as Vura Cheruvu, Chaviti (Polamulo Pallam Bhoomi) in survey No.71 of Hamsavaram Village, Tuni Mandal in East Godavari District under possessory agreement of sale dated 11.12.1989 from Kotagiri Chittamma for sale consideration of Rs.80,000/-. The sale deed could not be obtained as the vendor died on 03.09.1993. The father-in-law applied under Section 4 of the Act to second respondent for issue of Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds (PPBs). The third respondent gave two PPBs for Acs.2.00 each to petitioners. The petitioners claim that they have a right to Acs.2.00 each. As fourth respondent set up rival claim under an unregistered will dated 31.08.1993 allegedly executed by Chittamma, petitioners filed O.S.No.441 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 11.12.1989 standing in favour of petitioners’ father-in-law. At that stage, third respondent filed an application before second respondent for cancellation of PPBs. It was forwarded to first respondent. Yet again, third respondent filed appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act before first respondent contending that she purchased the land from fourth respondent. After receiving notice, petitioners submitted objections bringing to the notice of appellate authority that the suit is pending. After considering the matter, first respondent passed impugned order. The counsel for petitioners made submissions contending that the observations made by first respondent with regard to validity and/or enforceability of the possessory agreement dated 11.12.1989 are unsustainable. He nextly contends that second respondent erred in usurping the jurisdiction as the power to cancel the PPBs does not inher in the appellate authority, it is only first respondent that he can do so. The submission of the counsel for petitioners that the second respondent can cancel PPBs is misconceived. Under Section 5(6) of the Act, second respondent can only correct clerical errors and when once PPBs are issued as recording authority, second respondent cannot cancel PPBs. If any person is aggrieved by the same, the remedy is only by way of appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act and if an order is passed by second respondent under Section 5-A of the Act regularizing unregistered sale, appeal lies under Section 5-B of the Act. Therefore, first respondent does not suffer from inherent lack of jurisdiction. Insofar as merit is concerned, it is well settled that the entries in the record of rights or PPBs are always subject to a declaratory decree passed by the civil Court as per Section 8(2) of the Act. Further, when a suit is pending between rival parties, where said parties are claiming under two different documents, it is well settled that revenue authorities are precluded from proceeding with the enquiry. Therefore, impugned order cannot be faulted. Insofar as direction of first respondent to second respondent to rectify the irregularities in issue of PPBs are concerned, having regard to the pending suit, such direction is innocuous and if the petitioners are aggrieved by such direction, they can always prefer a revision to the Joint Collector under Section 9 of the Act. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to do so. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 28.04.2010 pln