THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.15102 of 2010 DT.08.11.2010 Between: Jallipalli Rama Rao and others … Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Khammam and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.Kowturu Vinaya Kumar Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6: Mr.S.Balchand The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: The dispute in this writ petition pertains to Acs.6.08 guntas of land in Survey Nos.51 and 52 of Aswaraopet Village and Mandal. The father of the petitioners, by name late Buchaiah, was stated to have sold the above-mentioned property in favour of respondent No.4 through an unregistered sale deed, dated 10.11.1955. It is the case of respondent Nos.4 to 6 that in pursuance of the said sale, they are in possession of the said land. It is their further case that in the year 1982, pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 6. But, however, subsequently on 27.05.2005, fresh pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued in favour of the petitioners. Assailing the said action, respondent Nos.4 to 6 filed an appeal before respondent No.2, who by his order, dated 17.02.2010, allowed the same and while setting aside the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners, respondent No.2 directed the pattadar pass books and title deeds to be issued in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 6. The revision petition filed by them before respondent No.1 having been dismissed vide order, dated 31.05.2010, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the very claim of respondent Nos.4 to 6 that they have got the title over the property in question through an unregistered sale deed stated to have been executed by the petitioners’ father itself cannot be countenanced in law because no title can be conveyed through an unregistered sale deed in respect of an immovable property whose value exceeds Rs.100/-. Sri S.Balchand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6, submitted that report, dated 10.06.2006, submitted by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 categorically shows that the petitioners are not in physical possession of the land and that respondent Nos.4 to 6 have been in possession of the same. The learned counsel further submitted that the revenue records were found altered with white fluid and that pattadar pass books and title deeds were wrongly issued in favour of the petitioners. The learned counsel also submitted that both respondent Nos.1 and 2 have concurrently found that the petitioners are not in possession of the property and therefore, these findings are not liable to be interfered with. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. While reversing the decision of respondent No.3, respondent No.2 has given detailed and convincing reasons. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will refrain from re-appreciating the facts on the basis of which findings have been arrived at by both the authorities below. The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that pending revision before respondent No.1, his clients have filed O.S.No.101 of 2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sathupalli for declaration of title and that the same is pending. Under Section 8(2) of the A.P.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. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioners have already availed the appropriate remedy by way of a civil suit, which can be traceable to the above-mentioned provision. While declining to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact rendered by respondent Nos.1 and 2, liberty is given to the petitioners to pursue the suit which has already been filed by them and pending before the civil Court. It is needless to observe that the civil Court shall decide the suit on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties to the suit, and the findings rendered by respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall not in any manner influence the civil Court while deciding the suit. If the petitioners succeed in the suit, they are entitled to seek amendment of entries by invoking section 8(2) of the Act notwithstanding orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, which are questioned in this writ petition. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 06.07.2010, which was extended until further orders on 08.10.2010, is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.19036 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 08.11.2010 Note: Issue CC in two weeks. (b/o) VGB