IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 10858 of 2009 Between: Putheti Santhan, S/o. P. Shyam Prasad, Being Minor Rep. by his Mother Natural Guardian Putheti Kameswari, W/o. Putheti Shyam Prasad, Aged about 32 Years R/o. Konetikayyalu, Kovur, P.S.R. Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Sri Potti Sreeramulu Nellore District, Nellore. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, Sri Potti Sreeramulu Nellore District, Nellore. 3 The Mandal Thasildhar, Kovur Mandal, Sri Potti Sreeramulu Nellore District, Nellore. 4 Putheti Sarojanamma, W/o. Late Lakshmaiah, R/o. C/o. Purini Satyanarayana, Kacherimitta, Kavali, Sri Potti Sreeramulu, Nellore District. 5 Putheti Venkata Ramana Rao, S/o.Late Lakshmaiah, in V.G.T.U.D.A., Vijayawada,. .....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 to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not permitting the petitioner to implead in the proceedings R.C.E.No. 7/1047/2009 before the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India, and conseqeuntly direct the 1st respondent to allow implead petition filed by the petitioner in proceedings R.C.E.No. 7/1047/2009, and hear the objections of the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.10858 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER The writ petition is misconceived. The petitioner seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to implead the petitioner in proceedings R.C.E.No.7/1047/2009. The petitioner is a minor who claims to be the owner and in possession of land in an extent of Ac.1.53 cents in Sy.No.1006-A Kovur village, Nellore district. The 4th respondent out of natural love and affection is said to have gifted the aforementioned property to the petitioner through a registered settlement deed bearing document No.1618/2007 dated.29-06-2007 registered with the office of the Sub Registrar, Kovur. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent revoked the registered settlement deed (executed infavour of the petitioner), on 15-09-2008 unilaterally. The 5th respondent claims that the land covered by the settlement deed is his property; was partitioned in 1999 among the brothers; and that he obtained a share to the said extent and obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds. The 4th respondent however appears to have petitioned the 2nd respondent to cancel the pattadar pass books and title deeds. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent directed the 3rd respondent to inquire into the petition and submit a report. It is also stated that some proceedings are pending before the 1st respondent in RCE 3108/2008 and that the 1st respondent has taken up proceedings bearing R.C.E No.7/1047/2009 whereupon the petitioner sought impleadment in the proceedings. The allegation is that the 1st respondent would proceed to adjudicate upon the matter without impleading the petitioner and hearing him. From the perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is not clear what proceedings are pending before the 1st respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the petitioner has filed O.S.No.1 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur seeking a declaration of title in respect of the extent of Ac.1.53 cents of land in Sy.No.1006/A Kovur village wherein respondents 4 and 5 are arrayed as defendants. The petitioner however apprehends that the administrative determination by the revenue officials including in same proceedings said to be pending before the 1st respondent might prevail over the determinations by the civil court in a declaratory suit filed by him. This misconception of the legal position by the petitioner cannot be a basis for a writ of Mandamus. It is established principle that it is the province of the judicial branch to declare particular disputes including the civil disputes involving declaration of title to property. As the petitioner’s substantive suit before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction is pending any determination or even grant of pattadar pass books or title deeds by the revenue authorities be, it is trite subordinate to determinations by the decree of the Civil Court. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed. As and when the 1st respondent passes any final orders including without considering the petitioner’s application for impleading, the petitioner may reconsider his litigative strategies. With these observations the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 3rd JUNE 2009 *TSNR