IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.11324 of 2008 Between: S.Lakshmi Reddy, S/o. S.Veera Reddy, R/o.80-81D, Kallur, Kurnool District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The R.D.O., Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2. Tahsildar, Kallur,Kurnool District. 3. The Joint Collector, Krunool district. 4. S.Mohd Yakoob, S/o. Madar Saheb, R/o. Kallur Village, Krunool District. 5. S.Gafar, S/o. Madar Saheb, R/o. Kallur Village, Krunool District. 6. S.Basheer, S/o. Madar Saheb, R/o. Kallur Village, Krunool District. 7. S.Abdullah, S/o. Madar Saheb, R/o. Kallur Village, Krunool District. 8. S.Samad, S/o. Madar Saheb, R/o. Kallur Village, Krunool District. 9. S.Rasheed, S/o. Madar Saheb, R/o. Kallur Village, Krunool District. ...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 a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order of Orders , Direction or directions to direct the Respondents 1 and 2 not to dispossess the petitioner from the land of 1.91 Acres in Sy.No.195/1C and 65 cents in Sy.No.195/2B, Kallur Village, Kurnool district pending the Revision Petition filed before the 3rd Respondent questioning the order of the 1st Respondent in RC (F)1955/2007 dated 03.04.2008. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.11324 of 2008 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to dispossess the petitioner from his land in an extent of Ac.1.91 cents in Survey No.195/1C and 0.65 cents in Survey No.195/2B, Kallur Village, Kurnool District pending the revision filed before the third respondent questioning the order of the first respondent in RC (F)f 1955/2007 dated 03.04.2008. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the above extent of land from one Late Madar Saheb under an Agreement of Sale dated 25.03.1992 for a consideration of Rs.25,000/- and paid the entire amount to him. The possession was handed over to him in the year 1992 itself and he has been cultivating the land since then. He applied for mutation in the year 1994 and after following the due procedure, the then Mandal Revenue Officer issued patta pass book and title document in his favour. The petitioner mortgaged the land to Rayalaseema Grameena Bank and to Kallur P.A.C.S. for raising agricultural loans. The said Madar Saheb postponed the execution of Sale Deed on some ground or the other and he expired three years ago. Then respondent Nos.4 to 9, who are the sons of the said Madar Saheb and who are well aware of the entire transaction, issued a legal notice dated 16.04.2007 alleging that the petitioner is encroaching their land in the above-mentioned survey numbers. He got issued reply notice dated 02.05.2007 denying the allegation. Respondent Nos.4 to 9 approached the first respondent by way of an appeal seeking cancellation of the patta pass book and title deeds in his favour by the MRO. The first respondent passed the order dated 03.04.2008 with an observation that since the agreement of sale is not a registered document, the mutation done in his favour is invalid and accordingly, cancelled his patta pass book and title deed and directed the second respondent to take the consequential steps. Hence, he preferred a revision against the order dated 03.04.2008 passed by the first respondent in RC (F) 1955 of 2007 along with stay application. The third respondent-revisional authority did not consider the said application. Hence, he filed the present Writ Petition. On 29.05.2008, while ordering notice before admission, this Court ordered status quo as on that day to be maintained for a period of six weeks and the matter came up for admission today. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, this Court deems fit to dispose of the Writ Petition with the following observation. The third respondent is directed to dispose of the revision of the petitioner in accordance with law. Till then, status quo granted on 29.05.2008 shall be continued. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ______________ (N.V.RAMANA, J) 19th June 2008 RRB