IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26172 of 2008 Between: 1 J. Yadagiri, S/o. Late Butchaiah, R/o. 9-11-121, Near Sahati Ladies Hostel, Nehru nagar, Opp: Gowtham Chit Funds Private Limited, Khammam. 2 J. Dasarath, S/o. Late Butchaiah, R/o. 12-8-252, Mettuguda, Secunderabad. 3 J. Prakash, S/o. Late Butchaiah, R/o. 23-5-804/1, Aarya Maidan, Opp: Sudha Talkies, Shalibanda, Hyderabad. 4 J. Suresh, S/o. Late Butchaiah, R/o. 23-6-673, Komaraiah Bada, Near Laxminarayana Temple, Bela Chowrastha, Shalibanda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Tahsildar, Yacharam (M), Ranga Reddy District. 4 J. Satyanarayana, S/o. Laxmaiah, R/o. 23-6-852/1/2, Shalibanda, Hyderabad. .....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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to ROR Revision Petition No. D5/7265/07 from the file of the 1st respondent and quash the order Dt. 27-09-2008 passed therein confirming the order of the 2nd respondent in Proc.No. A2/254/2006, Dt. 03-11-07 canceling the Pattadar Pass Books & Title Deeds of the Petitioners in respect of lands to Ac. 6-10 gts in Sy.No. 278 & Ac. 0-34 gts in Sy.No. 358 situated at Chinna Tundla (V), Yacharam (M), Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary and contrary the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land & Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: One Sri Jakkula Sayanna was the owner of Acs.7.04 guntas of land in survey Nos.278 and 358 of Chinthundla Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He had four sons by name Jaggaiah, Bhoomaiah, Butchaiah and Laxmaiah. The petitioners are the sons of Butchaiah. After the death of Sayanna, the entire property was mutated in the name of his eldest son Jaggaiah. On the basis of an application filed by the petitioners herein alleging that in a family settlement Jaggaiah had settled the entire property in their favour, entries were made by the Tahasildar, Yacharam, the third respondent, under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), as regards the said land and pattadar pass books were also issued in their name, in the year 1985. The fourth respondent, who is the son of Jakkula Laxmaiah, filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District, the second respondent, against the issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of petitioners. He has alleged that the petitioners have misrepresented the facts before the third respondent and the same resulted in denial of his rights. The second respondent allowed the appeal through order, dated 03.11.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed revision before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the first respondent. The revision was dismissed on 29.09.2008. Hence, this Writ Petition. Sri V.Jithender Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the appeal preferred before the third respondent was hopelessly barred by limitation, since it was presented more than two decades after the issuance of pattadar pass books. He contends that the fourth respondent has already filed O.S.No.223 of 2006 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, and there was no basis for filing of the appeal simultaneously before the second respondent. Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the fourth respondent, submits that the petitioners played fraud, apart from misrepresenting the facts in their effort to get the pattadar pass books in respect of the land. He contends that the land is ancestral property, which devolved equally in four shares in favour of sons of Sayanna and fraudulently the petitioners got mutation and pattadar pass books in their name to the exclusion of other co-parceners. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that respondents 1 to 3 have followed the relevant provisions of law. The pattadar pass books were issued in favour of the petitioners, as regards the land, referred to above, way back in the year 1985. The petitioners do admit that the land in question is an ancestral property. They, however, relied upon the family settlement, which, in turn, was believed by the third respondent. The Act and the Rules made thereunder not only provide for the remedy of appeal and revision, but also prescribe the period of limitation to avail the said remedies. By any standard, the appeal preferred two decades after the cause of action has arisen, cannot be entertained, unless and until a detailed discussion, on that aspect, is undertaken and a finding is recorded. A perusal of the order, dated 03.11.2007, passed by the second respondent discloses that he did not even advert to the aspect of limitation. It may be true that in cases where fraud is pleaded the question of limitation becomes insignificant. Here again, the plea raised by the fourth respondent alleging fraud was laconic, much less any finding was recorded by the second respondent accepting the same. One important aspect, which persuades this Court to set at naught, the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2, is that the fourth respondent has already chosen the remedy of filing of a suit. Sub- section (2) of Section 8 of the Act leaves it always open to the aggrieved party to file a suit and any steps taken under the Act would naturally be subject to the out come of the suit. Therefore, initiation of remedy of suit on the one hand and the appeal on the other hand, cannot be countenanced. When the Act in clear terms makes it clear that any orders passed in exercise of power in it would be subject to the out come of the suits, it cannot be said that the rights of the fourth respondent were in jeopardy. The interests of the parties can be protected by directing that no one shall be entitled to alienate or create third party rights as regards the land during the pendency of the suit. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the orders passed by respondents 2 and 1 on 03.11.2007 and 29.09.2008, respectively, are set aside. It is directed that the rights of the parties shall be governed by the decree that may be passed by the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam in O.S.No.223 of 2006 and the entries that are made in favour of the petitioners shall be subject to the out come of the said suit. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dated:20.01.2009 Note : Furnish C.C. in three days. (B/o) GJ