THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4772 of 2010 22.03.2010 Between: P.Thirupathi Reddy ….Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4772 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is aggrieved by purported order/proceedings dated 17.12.2009 of third respondent and the purported consequential order/proceedings dated 26.12.2009 of fourth respondent. He, therefore, filed present writ petition for a Writ of Mandamus and for a declaration that both the proceedings are illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The petitioner alleges that he is the owner of land admeasuring 20 guntas in survey No.39/A situated at Penchikal Village of Elkathurthy Mandal in Karimnagar District. He also states that he purchased property from three persons and also obtained a decree in O.S.No.389 of 1967. He obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds. He alleges that seventh respondent in collusion with eighth respondent created fraudulent registered sale deed dated 15.05.2006 as if the land in survey No.39/B is alienated in favour of eighth respondent. Based on the said document, eighth respondent approached fourth respondent and got mutated in revenue records by reason of the orders dated 13.10.2006. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed appeal before third respondent. The same was dismissed on 30.07.2009. The petitioner then filed revision petition before second respondent, the same is pending. Third respondent in response to a petition of eighth respondent addressed fourth respondent to address the police for assistance to prevent illegal interference of land of eighth respondent by the petitioner. Consequently, the fourth respondent addressed letter dated 26.12.2009 to sixth respondent to take necessary steps in the matter. Aggrieved by this, present writ petition is filed. At the stage of admission itself, fourth respondent filed counter affidavit. While denying the allegation that there is interference with the land of petitioner, it is categorically denied that fourth respondent is interfering with the land in survey No.39/A admeasuring 20 guntas. Insofar as the dispute is concerned, it is stated as under. In fact, as per the records, the seventh respondent is the owner of the property in Sy.No.39/B to an extent of Ac.0.24 guntas and the 8th respondent purchased the same from the seventh respondent and the name of the eighth respondent was entered in the pahani as owner of the property as per the Regd. Document No.593/2006, dated 15.05.2006. This respondent issued proceedings No.B/3426/2006, dated 13.10.2006 incorporating the name of the 8th respondent in the place of 7th respondent and issued pattadar pass book in khata No.557 and title deeds and also entered his name in the pahani as pattedar. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed an appeal No.D/4658/2007 before the third respondent and the third respondent dismissed the appeal on 30.07.2007. When the 8th respondent attempted to enter into his land on 22.11.2007, the petitioner objected him. Immediately he approached this respondent, reported the same and requested to fix up the boundaries of his land. Upon his request, a survey was conducted on 16.09.2009 and boundaries were fixed and the petitioner removed the said bounaries. Again the 8th respondent approached the third respondent and the third respondent directed this respondent to address the police to assist the 8th respondent. On 26.12.2009 this respondent addressed a letter to the 6th respondent requesting him to take necessary steps to stop removal of boundaries by the petitioner. Since a representation has been received by this respondent and the same has been disposed. This Court heard learned counsel for petitioner, Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area) and counsel for eighth respondent. Counsel for petitioner submits that as per letter, dated 17.12.2009 as directed by Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Inspector measured the land, fixed the boundary stones and delivered possession to eighth respondent. The revenue authorities have no such jurisdiction to deliver possession to any person even though necessary entries are made in favour of such person. He nextly contends that when third respondent addressed fourth respondent to seek police assistance, the latter promptly sent a letter to the sixth respondent to take necessary action. This also according to counsel amounts to interference in civil dispute. He lastly contends that eighth respondent already filed suit being O.S.No.79 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad for injunction and by producing the impugned communications he is insisting for injunction order. Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue reiterated the counter contentions. The counsel for eighth respondent though not filed any counter submits that the land in survey No.39/A admeasuring 20 guntas belonging to petitioner was acquired for laying the road. The remaining land in survey No.39/B admeasuring 24 guntas was owned by seventh respondent but sold the same to eighth respondent. He obtained necessary mutation and after appeal was dismissed by first respondent, he got the land in his possession surveyed. He denied that the Mandal Revenue Inspector handed over possession to eighth respondent. The controversy is in a narrow compass. Whether at the instance of respondents 3 and 4, Mandal Revenue Inspector-II, Elkathurthy, handedover possession to eighth respondent? Under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, the recording authority, appellate authority and revisional authority can order/direct necessary changes in the record of rights. They have no powers to direct delivery of possession nor they can take possession of the land, unless it is a Government land. In this case, as clarified by fourth respondent in his counter affidavit, when eighth respondent attempted to enter his land on 22.11.2007, the petitioner objected him. To solve the problem, the land was surveyed and boundary stones were fixed. Survey of land and fixing boundary stones of land of eighth respondent does not amount to delivery of possession. In that view of the matter, as rightly contended by learned Assistant Government Pleader, the observation to that effect in the letter of third respondent to fourth respondent is inadvertance. Secondly, communications between third and fourth respondents, and between fourth and sixth respondents do not alter the rights between petitioner and eighth respondent. Indeed, petitioner could not have filed any writ petition unless there is a specific order by fourth respondent to Mandal Revenue Inspector duly marking copy thereof to petitioner. Therefore, when conclusively it cannot be said that the revenue authorities handed over possession to eighth respondent, the writ petition is misconceived. Indisputably, petitioner’s appeal against proceedings of fourth respondent was dismissed. He preferred revision being No.D1/4890/12/09, the same is pending before the Joint Collector. The suit filed by eighth respondent is also pending. In this background, if the police enters the picture, it would certainly create complications. Therefore, this Court observes that civil disputes between petitioner and eighth respondent is pending before second respondent and civil Court, police have no role to play. It, however, does not prevent eighth respondent to lodge a complaint if any person tries to trespass into the land if he is in possession of the land to avoid further complications. Both the parties should maintain status quo. The Joint Collector shall dispose of the revision as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 22.03.2010 Pln