THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.3022 of 2007 and 6377 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue that arises for consideration in these two writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. The parties herein are referred to as arrayed in W.P.No.6377 of 2009. The petitioner and the 5th respondent had common ancestors and the land in survey Nos.549 and 550 of Pileru Village was held by the ancestors, for the last several years. The petitioner held the post of Village Administrative Officer. Alleging that the petitioner manipulated the entries in the revenue records and has shown the land as his exclusive property, the 5th respondent filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pileru, the 3rd respondent. At that stage, the petitioner filed W.P.No.7099 of 2006, questioning the very maintainability. The writ petition was disposed of, directing the 3rd respondent to decide the three issues, touching upon limitation, allegation as to tampering of record and the permissibility of correction of entries. Obviously, not being aware of the said order, the 3rd respondent passed an order, dated 28.12.2006 allowing the appeal and directing correction of the unauthorized entries made by the petitioner, in respect of the land in survey Nos.549 and 550. The petitioner filed W.P.No.3022 of 2007 against the said order. Simultaneously, he filed a revision under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), before the Joint Collector, the 2nd respondent. The revision was allowed and the matter was remanded to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration and disposal. On such consideration, the 3rd respondent passed a fresh order dated 22.03.2007, duly discussing the three issues framed by this Court. The revision was dismissed on 17.01.2009. W.P.No.6377 of 2009 is filed against the same. Heard Sri B.Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri A.Ravinder, learned counsel for the 5th respondent. W.P.No.3022 of 2007 has become infructuous in as much as the order challenged therein was set aside, and thereafter, the 3rd respondent passed fresh orders. It is not in dispute that the property in the said survey numbers was held by the ancestors of the petitioner and the 5th respondent. It was not even mentioned that any partition has taken place between the two branches of the family. The allegation made by the 5th respondent that the petitioner interpolated certain entries in the revenue records was found to be true, on verification of records. The 3rd respondent has allowed the appeal. A specific finding was recorded to the effect that the entries were tampered with. After undertaking a very detailed discussion, the 3rd respondent directed restoration of earlier entries. The same was affirmed by the 1st respondent. No serious factual or legal infirmity is pointed out. Even where a person feels aggrieved by the orders passed under various provisions of the Act, the ultimate remedy is provided for in the form of a suit under Section 8(2) of the Act. In the instant case, two suits, namely O.S.Nos.263 of 2001 and 17 of 2002 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Pileru, were filed by the petitioner, for partition of the very land in survey Nos.549 and 550. He has to await the out come of the suits and in case, any property is allotted to him in the preliminary and final decrees, he can certainly insist upon the entries being made in his favour in the revenue records. Hence, W.P.No.3022 of 2007 is dismissed and W.P.No.6377 of 2009 is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to prosecute the remedies, depending upon the out come of O.S.Nos.263 of 2001 and 17 of 2002 pending in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Pileru. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:31.03.2009. GJ