THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10430 of 2010 Dated:30.04.2010 Between: Smt.G.Geetha, and another. ….Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10430 of 2010 ORDER: The first petitioner allegedly purchased land admeasuring Acs.10.00 in survey No.46 (out of Acs.12.27 guntas) of Ammapur Village of Hanwada Mandal in Mahabubnagar District from Shaik Habeeb Mohammad under a registered sale deed dated 07.12.2006. The second petitioner purchased Acs.2.27 guntas in the said survey number under a sale deed executed on the same day. The petitioners allege that their vendor succeeded to the property of Shaik Amina Bee, sister of Kamruddin who was the pattadar. It appears, sale deeds were also executed by the legal heirs of Ippali Hanumaiah, who was the protected tenant. Therefore, petitioners approached the Mandal Revenue Officer to delete the name of protected tenant in respect of survey No.46. The petitioners are allegedly in possession of the land. When respondent Nos.2 to 4 tried to interfere, they filed O.S.No.4 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. The said Court passed orders on 30.04.2008 directing status quo in I.A.No.48 of 2008. The petitioners filed C.M.A.No.20 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the VII Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, and orders of the trial Court were confirmed. The petitioners also obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds from third respondent. The fourth respondent addressed a letter dated 02.12.2007 to correct the entries in the pahanies showing the land as forest land. In response thereto, second respondent by impugned letter dated 02.01.2010 issued directions to the third respondent to change the revenue records as forest lands. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition. This Court heard the Counsel for the petitioners and the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area). The writ petition in the considered opinion of this Court is premature. In response to the communication of the fourth respondent the second respondent directed the third respondent to change the revenue entries. The entries have not been changed so far. While doing so, the third respondent has to necessarily issue notice to the petitioners, conduct enquiry with reference to revenue records and records of forest department and pass necessary orders. Even before such orders are passed, the present writ petition is filed presumably to preempt the authorities from discharging their duties under relevant statutes. The petitioners have to await the final orders of Tahsildar and then seek appropriate remedies under Section 158 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, or under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The Writ Petition with the above observations is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 30.04.2010 vs