IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 161 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 02/02/2005 in WP NO : 21005 OF 2003 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Pochi Reddy s/o. Ram Reddy r/o. Pudur village & Mandal, RR District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Revenue Divisonal officer, Vikarabad Division, Vikarabad,RR Dist. 2 The M.R.O.,Pudur Mandal, RR District. 3 Dhanraj singh s/o. Raghunath singh R/o.H.no.6-2-642/12, Chintal Basthi, Khairtabad, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.A.SUDERSHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos 1 & 2 : GP FOR REVENUE The Division Bench of this Court made the following : (Judgment follows 2nd page) THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 161 of 2009 J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon’ble Mrs. Justice T. Meenakumari) The present writ appeal is filed against the orders dated 02-2- 2005 passed by the learned single Judge in WPMP.No.13631 of 2004 in WP.No.21005 of 2003, whereby he dismissed the application seeking to permit him to withdraw WP.No.21005 of 2003 as directed by the Division Bench in WA.No.700 of 2004, dated 27-4-2004. 2. The main contention of Sri A.Sudarshan Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned single Judge erred in dismissing WPMP.No.13631 of 2004 holding that the appellant has committed fraud and thereby foreclosed the opportunity to avail further statutory remedy of appeal. Further he contended that the appellant was not aware of the whereabouts of the vendor and he was informed that he died. The appellant was in possession of the property from the date of purchase i.e., from the year 1984 and his name is recorded in all the revenue records. The third respondent never raised any objection or any resistance at any time with regard to the possession and enjoyment of the appellant over the schedule mentioned property since 1984. 3. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant may be allowed to file revision so that he would be able to produce evidence with regard to the issuance of the certificate under section 5-A of the AP Record of Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Book Act, 1971. But the learned Judge ought to have allowed the appellant to file the statutory revision in view of the jurisdiction available to the appellate authority to go into the issues of the facts and law. He further submitted that the writ appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 20-2-2004 passed in WP.No.21005 of 2003 being WA.No.700 of 2004 was dismissed on 27-4-2004 granting leave to the appellant to approach the learned single Judge for filing proper application of his intention to withdraw WP.No.21005 of 2003 to pursue the remedy of revision. Further the complaint filed by the third respondent against the appellant in Cr.No.95 of 2005 was closed by the police and final report under section 173 of Cr.P.C. was filed and dropped all further action. In view of filing final report by the police, the third respondent had not filed any protest application before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Govt.Pleader for Revenue and the counsel representing the third respondent and perused the order impugned in this writ appeal. 5. As can be seen from the order impugned, the learned single Judge has rightly refused to allow WPMP.No.13631 of 2004 on the ground that the appellant played fraud on the court in validating the unregistered sale deed under the provisions of the AP Record of Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Book Act, 1971 and when once it is found that the Revenue Divisional Officer set aside such an order and after the dismissal of the writ petition, even if he files a revision, the court cannot permit the revisional authority to sit in judgment over the findings recorded by the court in deciding the revision and permitting him to withdraw the writ petition. The learned single Judge has opined that when dismissal of the writ petition has become final and the authority will not be allowed by this court to go into the issues of facts and law. In view of the observation made by the learned single Judge, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in this writ appeal. 6. The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. _________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. ___________________________ JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY 18-2-2009. I s L ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2. 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {TRT}