IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11868 of 2002 Between: Chalamcherla Venkata Raghavendra Aditya S/o.Seshukumar Reddy @ Seshadri Reddy R/o.Kanupartipadu village and post, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer Nellore Nellore District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer Indukurpet, Nellore District. 3 Dr.Chalamcherla Srinivas Vijayakumar Reddy S/o.Late Raghavareddy R/o.Putta Street, D.No.W.27/1/932,Balaji Street Nellore Nellore Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. SRINIVAS KARRA FOR MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.3: SMT. CHINTALAPUDI LAKSHMI KUMARI The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to declare order, dated 30.05.2002 passed by respondent No.1 whereby he cancelled the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued by respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioner. Heard Sri Srinivas Karra, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Smt. Chintalapudi Lakshmi Kumari, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the record. At the hearing, the sole ground on which the learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the validity of order of respondent No.1 is that the action of respondent No.2, issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the petitioner, is not amenable to the remedy of appeal before respondent No.1 under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). This issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of this Court in N.Bal Reddy and others v. Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Hyderabad and others [1] wherein this Court held that since issue of pattadar passbook is an action consequential to amendment of Record of Rights and though such an action is not speciﬁcally comprehended by Section 5(5) of the Act, the same is still amenable to be questioned in an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act. In view of the same, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected. As the order passed by respondent No.1 is liable to be questioned in a statutory revision petition provided under Section 9 of the Act, the writ petition is dismissed without going into the merits of the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by respondent No.1, permitting the petitioner to ﬁle a revision within four (4) weeks from today before the revisional authority. If such revision is ﬁled by the petitioner within the stipulated time, the revisional authority shall entertain and dispose of the same on merits after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent No.3. For a period of four (4) weeks, the parties shall maintain status quo and if the petitioner ﬁles the revision petition within the stipulated time, status quo shall continue till disposal of the revision petition. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th OCTOBER, 2008. kvni [1] 2004(2) ALD 419