HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.4799 of 2010 Date : 2-12-2010 Between : Sri Dandempally Yadaiah and others .. Petitioners and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Counsel for respondents 1 to 5 : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 8 : Parties-in-person The Court made the following : ORDER: At the Interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the vacate-stay applicants. This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.4 in entertaining appeal from respondent Nos.6 to 8 as illegal and without jurisdiction. There is a dispute between the petitioners on one side and respondent Nos.6 to 8 on the other in respect of property admeasuring Ac.9-15 guntas in Sy.No.164 and Ac.13-00 guntas in Sy.No.165 of Thakkallepahad village, Shaligouraram Mandal, Nalgonda District. For disposal of this Writ Petition, the details of the dispute need not be referred to. It will suffice to notice that after the petitioners purchased the property in question from Mada Venkatesam s/o.Sailu, the said person filed a revision under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short, “the Act”) before the Joint Collector, Nalgonda and succeeded wherein the Tahsildar was directed to mutate his name in the record of rights. The said order was questioned in W.P.No.10189/2003 in this court and a learned single Judge has allowed the said Writ Petition. The Judgement of the learned single Judge was questioned in W.A.No.66/2004 by the petitioners’ vendor. A Division Bench of this court while confirming the order of the learned single Judge observed in the Judgment dated 8-7-2004, inter alia, as under : “….It is well settled and needs no restatement at our hands that the questions relating to rights in immovable properties can never be resolved satisfactorily in a summary proceeding and the remedy is civil suit. The learned single Judge observed that it will be open to the appellant to get his rights established in a properly constituted civil suit. The learned counsel for the appellant however contended that Section 8 of the Act bars filing of suits and therefore the only remedy available to the appellant is by way of invoking the jurisdiction of the revisional authority under Section 9 of the Act. Section 8 of the Act merely bars suits against Government or its officers in respect of a claim to have an entry made or in relation to any entry made in any record of right or to have any such entry omitted or amended. Suits for declaration of title are not barred. The entries that are already made however shall always be subject to the decision of the civil suit, if any, to be filed by the appellant.” In my opinion, when their predecessor-in-title has suffered the above noted orders, respondent Nos.6 to 8 cannot claim a better right to approach the revenue authorities by claiming title through him. The findings of the Division Bench in the above noted Writ Appeal equally bind respondent Nos.6 to 8 who have stepped into the shoes of Mada Venkatesham. Dr.T.K.Srinivasulu – respondent No.8, who appeared as party-in-person has candidly admitted that their suit for declaration of title has been pending in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda and that the same is ripe for trial. Realizing the futility of the appeal filed before respondent No.4, respondent No.8 conceded that they may be permitted to pursue the suit and that in the event of their success in the suit, they may approach the revenue authorities for correction of entries in record of rights under Section 8(2) of the Act. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed and the proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer-respondent No.4 are quashed, without prejudice to the right of respondent Nos.6 to 8 to pursue pending civil suit and invoke Section 8(2) of the Act after disposal of the suit, subject to the result therein. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J Date: 2-12-2010 AM