IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 25224 of 2001 Between: 1 Yacharam Balaiah S/o. Misaiah, Hindu, R/o. Pendyal village, Maheswaram Mandal, R.R.District. 2 Yacharam Narsing Rao S/o. Yacharam alaiah R/o. Pendyal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, R.R.District. 3 Yacharam Dasarath S/o. Yacharam Balaiah R/o. Pendyal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, R.R.District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer Pendyala Village, Maheswaram Mandal, R.R.District. 2 The Revenue divisional Officer, R.R.District (East)., 3 Mantri Venkataiah R/o. Pendyal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, R.R.District. 4 The Joint Collector, R.R.District. .....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 issue an appropriate Writ order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of Writ of Manadamus declaring the Proc.no.A2/6384/1996, Dt.21.3.1997 of the 2nd Respondent and the Proc.No.D5/3130/1997, Dt.5.3.2001 of the 4th Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and unsustainable and set aside the same holding that the Pattadur pass book and title deed issued to the petitioners in relation to the land admeasuring Acs.14.00 in Sy.no.138 of Pendyala Village, Maheswaram Mandalam, R.R.District as valid. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25224 of 2001 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 21.03.1997 passed by respondent No.2 and order dated 05.03.2001 passed by respondent No.4 confirming the order of respondent No.2. The petitioner and respondent No.3 have competing claims over the land admeasuring Ac.14.00 in Sy.No.138 of Pendyala Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Respondent No.3 is the purchaser of the property from the wife of the brother of petitioner No.1. At the instance of the petitioners, entries in the revenue record were altered in their name by respondent No.1. Respondent No.3, who claimed to have purchased an extent of Ac.7.00 from Smt. Shanthamma, wife of the brother of petitioner No.1, evidently approached respondent No.2 for correction of entries and cancellation of pattadar passbooks and title deeds standing in favour of the petitioners. This apart, on the basis of a news item, respondent No.2 initiated proceedings and after setting the petitioners ex-parte passed order dated 21.03.1997 for rectification of the entries in favour of Smt. Shanthamma. The petitioners filed revision before respondent No.4, who initially suspended the said order, but dismissed the revision petition by his order dated 05.03.2001. These two orders are assailed in this writ petition. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the averments contained in para 10 of the affidavit that the petitioners filed O.S.No.51 of 2001 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District against respondent No.3 for permanent injunction. He submitted that thereafter the petitioners were advised to amend the suit to one of declaration of title. Under Section 8(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ‘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 petitioners have already filed a civil suit in the year 2001 itself and the abovementioned statutory provision makes it obligatory for the respondents to amend the record of rights in the event of the civil Court’s declaration in favour of the plaintiff, it is not necessary for this Court to examine the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the appellate and revisional authorities questioned in this writ petition. Indeed, on 27.12.2001, this Court, while admitting this writ petition, granted order of status quo, which was vacated by this Court by order dated 17.04.2003. If the petitioners succeed in their suit, they are entitled to approach the respondents for appropriate amendment of the entries in the record of rights, as envisaged under Section 8(2) of the Act. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.02.2009 ES