IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 2994 of 2009 Between: 1 Lingala Suvarna Devi W/o. Chenna Krishna Reddy R/o. H.No. 1-2-17/A, Near Head Post Office Jangaon Town, Warangal District. 2 Boppidi Pandith Reddy S/o. Ranga Reddy R/o. Kallem Village, Lingala Ghanapur Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Joint Collector, Warangal District at Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon Revenue Division, at Jangaon, Warangal District. 3 The Tahsildar Lingala Ghanapur Mandal, Warangal District. 4 Keesara @ Lingala Sukanya Devi W/o. Keshava Reddy D/o. Late Lingala Venkat Reddy R/o.H.No. 6-3-668/10/21 Durganagar Colony, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. 5 Lingala Sriram Reddy S/o. Chenna Krishna Reddy R/o. 6-1-116, Flat NO. 204, Natarajan Residency Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an order or direction or writ especially writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertianing to impugned order No. E5/3590/2007 dt. 27-1-2009 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.NARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 2994 of 2009 19-02-2009 Oral Order: The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the 1st respondent bearing reference File No. E5/3590/2007 dated 27-01-2009 whereby the said respondent allowed the revision preferred by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). The 1st respondent in the revisional order recorded a finding that the respondents are the pattadars of agricultural lands in survey Nos. 285, 321, 322, 323 and 324 of Kallem village of Lingala Ghanpur Mandal, Warangal District; that the 3rd respondent had issued Pattadar Pass Books and title deeds to the 1st petitioner herein and to the 2nd petitioner without notice to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and other persons interested in the lands; and without following the due procedure. Consequently, the Pattadar Pass Books and title deeds issued to the petitioners herein (respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the revision) by the 3rd respondent were declared invalid and the revision allowed. The 3rd respondent by an order dated 06-11-2006, in purported exercise of powers under Section 5-A of the Act had granted Pattadar Pass Books and title deeds in favour of the petitioners in respect of the lands in survey Nos. 285, 321, 322, 323 and 324 of Kallem village in a total extent of Ac.08-15 Gts., (and another extent of Ac.05-05 gts., in survey no. 329 of the village which is not the subject matter of this lis between the parties). Against the order of the 3rd respondent dated 06-11-2006, the 4th respondent herein preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent under Section 5-B of the Act on 20-08-2006 while the 5th respondent together with the 4th respondent preferred the revision to the 1st respondent under Section 9 of the Act. After the order of the 3rd respondent dated 06-11-2006 granting title deeds and Pattadar Pass Books in favour of the 2nd petitioner herein, the said petitioner herein filed O.S.No. 64 of 2006 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon seeking injunctive relief from interference by the 5th respondent herein on the basis of the orders of the 3rd respondent dated 06-11-2006 and in I.A.No.587 of 2006 obtained an ad-interim injunction on 24-07-2007, which was extended thereafter. As a counterblast to the injunction sought by the 2nd petitioner in O.S.No. 64 of 2006 and aggrieved by the grant of Pattadar Pass Books and title deeds in favour of the 2nd petitioner, the 5th respondent filed O.S.No. 24 of 2007 on the file of the learned IV-Additional District Judge, Warangal seeking declaration of ownership and consequent injunction in respect of ‘A’ & ‘B’ plaint schedule properties; partition of the suit schedule properties and cancellation of the sale deed dated 15-07-2006 in document No. 2084 of 2006 of the office of Sub Registrar, Jangaon, Warangal district in respect of ‘C’ schedule property executed by the 1st petitioner in favour of the 2nd petitioner. The properties in the lis which are the subject matter of O.S.No. 24 of 2007 on the file of leaned IV-Additional District Judge, Warangal included the properties in respect of which the 3rd respondent had granted title deeds and Pattadar Pass Books in favour of the 2nd petitioner herein. The 5th respondent also states to have obtained an order of status quo in an ad-interim injunction application in O.S.No. 24 of 2007. Simultaneously with the litigative campaigns before the Civil Courts, the 5th respondent in association with the respondent No.4 preferred a revision before the 1st respondent against the order of the 3rd respondent dated 06- 11-2006, wherein the impugned order is passed. O.S.No. 24 of 2007 filed by the 5th respondent on the file of learned IV-Additional District Judge, Warangal is a proceeding wherein the 5th respondent claims title to the suit schedule properties including properties which are the subject matter of the quasi judicial determinations under the provisions of the Act. Section 8 (2) of the Act enjoins that if any person is aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963) and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration. It requires to be noticed that Section 8(2) of the Act does not purport to confer any special jurisdiction in the Civil Court distinct from the jurisdiction inhering under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 i.e., the generic jurisdiction to decide any dispute of a civil nature. It merely preserved such jurisdiction. The 5th respondent’s suit – O.S.No. 24 of 2007 – being a substantive suit seeking declaration of title to which the 2nd petitioner is a party as a defendant and in which the 1st petitioner may also seek impleadment, if so desired. It is axiomatic that the determinations by either the Mandal Revenue Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer or the Joint Collector in exercise of powers under Sections 5-A; 5-B or 9 of the Act are but quasi judicial and determinations which do not in any way impede nor are intended to eclipse the adjudicatory powers of the Civil Court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is the Civil Court which has to determine, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence produced before it whether the plaintiff in O.S.No. 24 of 2007 (the 5th respondent herein) has or has not title to the suit schedule properties including the properties on which the 1st respondent herein had pronounced in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act. On the analysis and in the circumstances above, it is neither appropriate nor required that this Court should pronounce upon the validity or regularity of the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the 1st respondent qua the order dated 06-11-2006 impugned herein. The claim of the 5th respondent in O.S.No. 24 of 2007 shall be determined by the Civil Court on the basis of the material before it and without in any manner being influenced by either the order of the 3rd respondent dated 06-11-2006 or the observations in the revisional order of the 1st respondent dated 27-01-2009 which as already observed are mere quasi judicial and revenue determinations regarding the claims of the respective parties. Since the 5th respondent has already instituted O.S.No. 24 of 2007, the 4th respondent, if so advised may implead herself in the said suit and putforth whatever defences she may have in opposition to the claims of plaintiff therein. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is disposed of in the light of the observations herein above at the stage of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. B. Narayana Reddy; Mr. G. Ramachanda Reddy, learned counsel for the caveator – 5th respondent herein – and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. There shall however be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 19-02-2009 Pvks/*