IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18741 of 2005 Between: Korukanti Narsinga Rao, S/o. Narayana Rao, R/o. Bandalingapur (V), Presently Residing at H.No. 1-9- 410, Ramnagar, Metpalli (V&M), Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Karimnagar. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagtial, Karimnagar District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ibrahimpatnam, karimnagar District. 4 The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, SRSP FFC Unit-II, L.M.D. Colony, Karimnagar. 5 Kurma Nadipi Bhoomanna, S/o. Ramulu, R/o. Yerrapur (V), Ibrahimpatnam, Karimnagar District. 6 Kumra Nadipi Rajireddy, S/o. Narsaiah, R/o. Yerrapur (V), Ibrahimpatnam, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.SUDERSHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6: SRI P.V.NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.4: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order, dated 06.07.2005, passed by respondent No.1 and for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to eﬀect change in the revenue records by mutating the name of the petitioner in respect of Ac.5.10 guntas of land comprised in Sy.No.25 of Yerrapur village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District. The petitioner also sought for a direction to respondent No.4 to deposit the amount of compensation awarded in respect of the said land in the Civil Court under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. The petitioner was originally the owner of the above mentioned property. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 claimed that the said property was sold by the petitioner in their favour through an unregistered sale deed. They approached respondent No.3 for entering their names in the Record of Rights. As their request was accepted by respondent No.3 and the Record of Rights was corrected, the petitioner ﬁled appeal before respondent No.2. The said appeal was dismissed by order, dated 03.01.2005, passed by respondent No.2. The said order was questioned in revision by the petitioner before respondent No.1. The said revision was dismissed by respondent No.1, by his order dated 06.07.2005. Questioning these orders, the petitioner ﬁled this writ petition. 3. At the hearing, Sri A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, strongly contended that the orders of respondent Nos.3,2 and 1 suﬀer from patent illegality. He urged that while, admittedly, the petitioner was the owner of the property, respondent Nos.5 and 6 claimed their right through an unregistered document, which was allegedly regularized under Section 5-A of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), but respondent Nos.5 and 6 have neither produced the alleged order of regularization before respondent Nos.1 and 2 nor the said respondents have referred to and discussed the said order in their orders. 4. Sri P.V.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, while opposing the said contentions submitted that respondent Nos.5 and 6 approached respondent No.3 under Section 5-A of the Act and that after receiving a sum of Rs.600/-, respondent No.3 passed order in the year 1999 regularising the plain paper sale deed executed by the petitioner in their favour. He submitted that respondent Nos.5 and 6 could not produce the regularization order before respondent Nos.1 and 2 as the ﬁle was missing as evident from the memo, dated 10.11.2005, issued by respondent No.3. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner ﬁled O.S.No.69 of 2005 on the ﬁle of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial, for declaration of title and for recovery of compensation amount of Rs.5,81,250/- and that, therefore, he may be relegated to the said suit. 5. A perusal of the orders of respondent Nos.2 and 1 passed in appeal and revision respectively ﬁled by the petitioner shows that neither of the said respondents have referred to or discussed the alleged order of regularization said to have been passed by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6. Unless proof of regularization is shown, respondent Nos.5 and 6 are not entitled to get their names mutated in the Record of Rights. In the absence of such proof of regularization in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6, respondent Nos.1 and 2 committed a serious illegality in aﬃrming the rights of respondent Nos.5 and 6 and consequently the order of respondent No.3. Ordinarily, the said orders deserve to be set aside. However, admittedly, the petitioner ﬁled the above mentioned suit in which he sought for the comprehensive relief of declaration of title in his favour. 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. As the petitioner already availed this remedy by ﬁling a civil suit, I refrain from going into the merits of the respective claims of the parties. It will suﬃce to hold that the ﬁndings recorded by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the revision and appeal respectively ﬁled by the petitioner shall not have any eﬀect on the Civil Court in the adjudication of the suit ﬁled by the petitioner and the Civil Court shall, independently decide the issues raised by the petitioner on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties before it. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial, shall dispose of O.S.No.69 of 2005 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 5th September, 2008 Note: Office is directed to despatch a copy of this order to the Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial. B/o v v