THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.25965 of 2008 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order, dated 27.09.2008, passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioners, on the one hand, and the 4th respondent, on the other hand, are common ancestors. Disputes arose between them, in relation to the land in survey Nos.166 and 167 of Rampally Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The 4th respondent filed O.S.No.672 of 1983 in the Court of Sub-ordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, against the petitioners, for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction. The suit was decreed on 08.11.1983. The decree became final. The 4th respondent approached the Tahsildar, Keesara Mandal, the 3rd respondent, with a request to make entries in the revenue records, inconformity with the decree in the suit. The 3rd respondent rejected the application, through his order, dated 26.06.2003. Thereupon, the 4th respondent filed an appeal under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kattela Mandi, the 2nd respondent. The appeal was also dismissed, on 26.06.2003. Therefore, he filed a revision under Section 9 of the Act, before the Joint Collector, 1st respondent. Through the impugned order, the 1st respondent allowed the revision. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. The petitioners do not dispute that the civil Court has passed a decree in favour of the 4th respondent declaring his title over the land in question. This naturally would give rise to a right to the 4th respondent to insist on the entries being made in accordance with that. Section 8(2) of the Act makes it clear that the decree passed by a civil Court would prevail and the entries in the revenue records must be in accordance with such decrees. The only ground urged by the petitioners in opposing the application of the 4th respondent was that it was filed after lapse of much time and that the third party rights have accrued in the meanwhile. That hardly makes any difference. Once the decree became final, it deserves to be respected and implemented by the 3rd respondent. The 1st respondent has examined the matter from the correct perspective and granted relief to the 4th respondent. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under challenge. The Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08.02.2010. GJ