HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.1115 of 2001 Date: June 9, 2011 Between: K.V.Naveen, S/o.K.S.K.V.Prasada Rao, 16 years (minor), represented by Mother and natural guardian Smt.K. Padmaja, R/o.Poranki Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, and another … Petitioners And Collector, Krishna District, Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam and others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioner prays this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue any writ or order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the issue of pass book and title deed for the lands Ac.10.98 ½ cents in R.S.No.90/1C, 109, 131/1B, 132, 133, 146/2C, 146, 386, 387/3A, 414/1, 430/11, situated at Poranki village, in Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and further cancel the same pass book and title deed for the above said Survey Nos. declaring to be illegal.” The 7th respondent herein is the grandfather of the petitioners. The land bearing Sy.Nos.430/11, 417/4, 418/1, 131/1B, 132, 133, 90/IC, 386, 414/1, 109 and 146/1C, admeasuring Ac.15.87 ½ cents, as shown in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, stands patta in the name of the 7th respondent. He applied for grant of pattadar pass books and title deeds before the Mandal Revenue Officer, who has negated the request. Thereupon, 7th respondent filed a revision as contemplated under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’). The revisional authority allowed the revision filed by 7th respondent holding that he is entitled for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds for the land in question. Thereafter, suit was filed for partition in O.S.No.795 of 1989 seeking partition of the properties. The said suit was withdrawn subsequently. Thereafter, petitioners, represented by her mother, filed I.A.No.8623 of 1996 for setting aside the order of dismissal of the suit and to restore the suit to file. When the said application was dismissed, petitioners approached this court in C.R.P.No.2273 of 1997. In the earlier round of litigation, when revision was filed by the 7th respondent under the Act was allowed and the application filed by the petitioners for restoration of the suit was dismissed, they approached this court in C.R.P.No.2273 of 1997 and W.P.No.10818 of 1999. Both the said cases were disposed of by a common order by a learned single Judge of this court. This court found that procedure for withdrawal of the suit was not in accordance with the provision under Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and dismissal was not in the interest of minors. This court did not interfere with the order of the revisional authority, but permitted the petitioners to pursue their application in I.A.No.8622 of 1996 for restoration of the suit. It is stated that subsequently the said I.A. was also dismissed and the matter was carried to this court in C.R.P.No.34 of 2002 which was dismissed by order dated 22-02-2006 and questioned before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in special leave to appeal (Civil) Nos.10377/2006. Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, when the matter had come up, it was represented that petitioner No.1, upon becoming major, filed a suit in O.S.No.59 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada; in that view of the matter, the said special leave petition was dismissed as infructuous. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the property in question is an ancestral property and therefore petitioners are entitled to a share in the same; as such the authorities ought not to have issued pattadar pass books in favour of the 7th respondent for the entire land. In this case, it is to be noticed that patta stands in the name of the 7th respondent. If the petitioners claim that they are entitled for a share in the property and the said property is the ancestral property devolved upon them, it is for them establish their claim before the civil court. Earlier, though they filed suits, they were minors and no adjudication was done on merits with regard to their claim for a share. Although the petitioners have questioned the order of the revisional authority by which the revision filed by the 7th respondent was allowed, the same was not interfered with by this court in W.P.No.10818 of 1999. If that be so, possession remains the same as on today and also in view of filing of fresh suit by the petitioners in O.S.No.59 of 2006. As the patta stands in the name of the 7th respondent and in absence of any adjudication with regard to the share claimed by the petitioners, I do not find any illegality in issuing pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the 7th respondent. If, ultimately, petitioners succeed in the suit filed by them for partition in O.S.No.59 of 2006, which is stated to be pending on the file of II Additional District Judge at Vijayawada, it is always open to them to get amendment carried out to the record of rights in accordance with the shares determined by the court. If record of rights are amended, petitioners as well can make an application with regard to any portion of the land in question. But, as of now, as patta stands in the name of the 7th respondent and in view of allowing of the revision by the revisional authority, which is not interfered by this court in W.P.No.10394 of 1997, I do not find any illegality in issuing pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the 7th respondent for the lands in question. Writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) June 9, 2011 MRR