IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23941 of 2004 Between: Chakali Balappa, S/o late Chakali Bheemappa, R/o Gandhi Nagar Colony, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, Yalal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Bheemamma, D/o Kasappa, R/o Lakshminarayanpur Village, Yalal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for respondent No.3: MR A.PULLA REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 28-10-1999 passed by respondent No.2 and as confirmed by order dated 23-11-2004 passed by respondent No.1. Heard Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.Pulla Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3, and perused the record. An extent of Ac.1.21 guntas in Survey No.124 and another extent of Acs.2.03 guntas in Survey No.125 of Aggamanur Village, Yalal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District are the subject matter of the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 approached respondent No.2 to mutate her name in the revenue record on the ground that she is the sole legal representative of Chakali Bheemappa, who is admittedly the father of the petitioner. The said application was allowed and respondent No.2 by his proceedings dated 21-03-1989 mutated the name of respondent No.3. On the basis of the said mutation, O.S.No.36 of 1991 filed by respondent No.3 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District was decreed on 17-03-1999. In the meantime, being unsuccessful in filing a review petition before respondent No.2, the petitioner filed a revision before respondent No.1. The said revision petition was allowed on 21-10-1999 by respondent No.1 and the case was remanded to respondent No.2 for a fresh enquiry. Consequently, respondent No.2 by order dated 28-10- 1999, reiterated his earlier decision and sanctioned the mutation in favour of respondent No.3. Questioning the said mutation order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before respondent No.1, who by his order dated 23-11-2004 dismissed the said revision petition, confirming the order of respondent No.2. While the revision petition was pending, the petitioner filed O.S.No.54 of 1999 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District for declaration of his title and for recovery of possession. At the hearing, Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No.3 obtained mutation on 21-03-1989 by playing fraud by claiming that she is the sole legal representative of Chakali Bheemappa, suppressing the fact that the petitioner is the son of the said Chakali Bheemappa and that he was the sole surviving legal representative. He submitted that after the remand of the case by respondent No.1, respondent No.3 changed her version by claiming that she succeeded to the property in a family partition taken place between Chakali Bheemappa and his brother, who is the grandfather of respondent No.3. The learned counsel submitted that respondent No.3 has not sought for permission of respondent No.2 to amend her pleadings on the analogy of Order VI Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, the order passed by respondent No.2 by accepting the changed version of respondent No.3 cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that respondent No.1 failed to consider the above mentioned crucial aspect and mechanically confirmed the order of respondent No.2. He relied on the judgment in Singamaneni Pullamma and others v. Joint Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District and others[1]. Opposing the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.Pulla Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3, submitted that the petitioner already availed his remedy in the civil Court by filing O.S. No.54 of 1999 and recently the said suit was dismissed. He further submitted that the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate Court questioning the said judgment and decree and the same is pending. He, therefore, stated that the petitioner having availed a remedy and has been pursuing the same, this Court need not adjudicate the dispute raised in this writ petition on merits and the parties may be relegated to pursue the pending appeal. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), the Mandal Revenue Officer shall, on receipt of intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right referred to in Section 4 of the Act, determine as to whether, and if so in what manner, the record of rights may be amended in consequence therefor and shall carry out the amendment in the record of rights in accordance with such determination. Under Section 5(5) of the Act, an aggrieved party is entitled to file an appeal against such a decision before the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned. Under Section 9 of the Act, a revision lies against an order passed in appeal to the Collector. Section 8(1) of the Act bars filing of suits against the Government or any Officer of Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made or in relation to an entry made in any record of rights or to have any such entry omitted or amended. However, under Section 8(2) of the Act, 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 and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration. At the outset I may deal with the judgment in Singamaneni Pullamma and others (supra), on which the learned counsel placed reliance. In that case, the petitioners therein earlier filed Writ Petition No. 16142 of 2001 against the order of the Joint Collector, who declined to entertain the revision of the petitioners on the ground that it was sub judice. The said writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the said order and remitting the matter to the Joint Collector to dispose of the revision on merits. After remand, the Joint Collector kept the order under revision in abeyance till the matter was decided by the civil Court. The Division Bench observed that the order passed by the Joint Collector was unsustainable for the reasons that apart from specific mandate under Section 9 of the Act under which the Joint Collector had the obligation to dispose of the revision on merits, there is a specific direction of the High Court to him for such disposal. The Division Bench also observed that as a fact nothing was pending before the civil Court when the Joint Collector passed the said order and that therefore, the reasoning that the matter was sub judice was erroneous. Having carefully considered the facts of the said case, I am of the considered view that the said judgment has no application to the present case, because in this case the Joint Collector had adjudicated the revision, on merits, by rendering a specific finding that the land in question was partitioned about more than 50 years back and has fallen to the share of the father and uncle of respondent No.3 and that the uncle of respondent No.3, Chakali Basappa having died, respondent No.3 succeeded to the said property. Having given these findings, respondent No.1 observed that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the civil Court to adjudicate his rights if any. In my considered view, this approach of respondent No.1 is in conformity with Section 9 and also Section 8(2) of the Act. Irrespective of the findings given by the revenue authorities under the Act, if a party approaches the civil Court and succeeds in getting his rights adjudicated, he is entitled to seek correction of entries on the basis of such a judgment and decree. The petitioner himself admitted that after remand by respondent No.1, he filed a comprehensive civil suit for declaration of his title and for recovery of his possession. The petitioner also filed a copy of the plaint filed in the said civil suit. Though, no reference is made to Section 8(2) of the Act, the civil suit filed by the petitioner is certainly referable to the said provision. If the petitioner is able to convince the civil Court on his title to the land in question, irrespective of the entry made by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.3, and confirmed by respondent No.1, he is entitled to seek amendment of such an entry by virtue of the decree he may get in the civil suit. Thus, an effective remedy is provided to the persons aggrieved by an entry made under the provisions of the Act and indeed the petitioner already availed such a remedy. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition need not be adjudicated on merits, in view of pendency of the appeal filed by him against the judgment of the civil Court in O.S.No.54 of 1999. Another reason for my disinclination to adjudicate the writ petition on merits is that the questions whether respondent No.3 could be permitted to change her stand after remand and whether a family partition as pleaded by respondent No.3 had taken place and she succeeded to the property in such partition are certainly questions of fact, which could be conveniently gone into and adjudicated by the civil Court with reference to the evidence adduced by both the parties before it. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his pending appeal and it is made clear that if the petitioner succeeds in the appeal, he is entitled to seek amendment in the revenue record notwithstanding the orders passed by the revenue authorities which are impugned in this writ petition. It is needless to observe that the appellate Court is not bound by the findings given by respondents 1 and 2 and shall adjudicate the appeal purely on the basis of the evidence available on record. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 9th July, 2008 vrn [1] 2004 (7) ALT 963