IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.4021 of 2008 Between: Y. Sailaja, W/o. Y.K. Babu, R/o. D-20, Road No. 16, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-33. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District At Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 M/s. Blue Streak Land Holdings (P) Limited, Regd. Office at 156-159, Paigha House, S.P. Road, Secunderabad, Rep. byits Director Mr. S. Bhupal, Aged about 48 Years, R/o. Hyderabad. 3 Som Bhupal, S/o.Not Known to the Petitioner, 156-159 Paigah House, S.P. Road, Secunderabad. .....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 or order or orders more particularly jone in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to directing the 1st respondent to take into consideration of the petitioner version on behalf of the petitioner and the 1st respondent in the revision No. D1/60/2008 pending before the 1st respondent Joint Collector posted for ﬁnal hearing on 1-3-2008 and consdier the detailed factual and legal submissions that were urged by the Writ petitioner through detail counter duly taking into consideration the documents ﬁled by the Petitioner before the revisional authority and decide the revision on merits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.V.BHANU PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.4021 of 2008 O R D E R: It is the case of the petitioner that against the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Shankerpally in File No.B/2472/05, dated 16.11.2005 in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.394, admeasuring Ac.15.14 gts. situated at Kondakal village, Shankerpally Mandal, granting pattas in favour of M/s.Bluestreaj Landholdings Pvt.Ltd. the 2nd respondent herein, the 4th respondent-Patulotu Hunya @ Kunya, represented by his GPA Holder Y.Sailaja, ﬁled appeal under Sec.5(5) of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act 1989 before the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Chevella and the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Chevella Division, by order dated 22.12.2007 in Proceedings No.C/968/07, set aside the said order of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Shankarpally, holding that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer did not verify the records thoroughly before issuing the said proceedings dated 16.11.2005 and there are disputed claims which are in civil nature and therefore, it is for the Civil Court to adjudicate the said disputes. Aggrieved by the said order of the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, respondents 2 and 3 herein ﬁled a revision before the Joint Collector, in which the 4th respondent herein is the 1st respondent therein. It is the case of the petitioner herein that she is the General Power of Attorney holder of the 4th respondent and others, and in fact, appeal was decided after hearing the petitioner herein being GPA holder of the 4th respondent. It is further submitted that though the petitioner herein was the GPA holder, but subsequently a regular sale deed has been executed in favour of the petitioner vide Sale Deed dated 03.12.2007 by the original owners i.e. 4th respondent and others. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 submits that the Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 03.02.2007 executed in favour of the petitioner by the 4th respondent and others was cancelled by registered Deed of Cancellation dated 20.11.2007 vide its Document No.948/2007, canceling the Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 03.02.2007, vide document No.1603/2007, and after cancellation of the said GPA, the petitioner fraudulently represented by herself Y.Sailaja on behalf of original owners executed a sale deed in her own favour and thus, the sale deed executed after cancellation of the GPA is illegal, null and void. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a party before the revision and therefore, the said controversy whether the petitioner still continues as GPA holder or acquired any right or title over the said property is a matter to be decided elsewhere, but not in this writ petition or in the pending revision before the Joint Collector. However, if the petitioner is claiming right and title based on the sale deed dated 03.12.2007, it is open for her to file an impleadment petition. No such application has been ﬁled before the revisional authority impleading the petitioner as one of the interested parties. If that be so, I am of the opinion that the Joint Collector rightly held that the petitioner has no locus standi to represent respondent No.4. Having regard to the facts of the case, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to ﬁle an independent impleadment petition before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in the pending revision case No.D1/60/2008. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 17.11.2008 Dsr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District At Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2.2CCs to 3.2CD copies