IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26850 of 2007 Between: 1 Smt.Surampally Ramulamma W/o.Late Surampally Sailoo R/o.H.No.1-94, Pedda Golconda village Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 2 Smt.Madargoni Mallamma W/o.Venkata Swamy R/o.H.No.1-94, Pedda Golconda village Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 3 Surampally Bikshapathy S/o.Late Surampally Saoloo R/o.H.No.1-94, Pedda Golconda village Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 4 Smt.Bobbili Balamani W/o.B.Srinu R/o.H.No.1-94, Pedda Golconda village Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 5 Surampally Paramesh S/o.late Surampally Sailoo R/o.H.No.1-94, Pedda Golconda village Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 6 Smt.Jadanandam Suguna W/o.Ramulu R/o.H.No.1-94, Pedda Golconda village Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 7 Smt.Jadanandam Susheela W/o.Laxmaiah R/o.H.No.1-94, Pedda Golconda village Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District Khairtabad,Hyderabad 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division Ranga Reddy District 3 The Mandal Revenue officer, Shamshabad Mandal Ranga Reddy District 4 Smt.Surampally Andalu W/o.Late Anjaiah R/o.H.no.1-93, Pedda Golconda village Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 5 Ch.Jagadeswar Rao S/o.Ch.Nagabushanam R/o.Street No.7, Himayatnagar Hyderabad 6 R.Srinivas S/o.R.Janardhan Rao R/o.Brindavan colony,Shamshabad village Ranga Reddy District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus: a. declaring the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1 to 3 vide proc.No.B1139/2004 dated 5.2.2005 proc.Lr.No.C/2492/2005 dated b. 20.10.2006 and vide proc. in Case no.D1/6341/2006 dated 20.10.2007 without issuing any notice to the petitioners and without conducting an enquiry as stipulated under the Act as arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of the petitioners rights under Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and in violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass books Act, 1971 and c. consequently set aside the same and ; d. further be pleased to pass such other further orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.THIRUMALA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26850 of 2007 ORDER: Petitioners 2 to 7 are the children of the first petitioner. One Mr.Surampally Sailoo held landed property, including one in survey No.60/A of Peddagolconda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, admeasuring Acs.5.15 guntas. Through his first wife, by name, Parvathamma, he had a son, by name Anjaiah. The fourth petitioner is the wife of Anjaiah. Sailoo is said to have married the first petitioner after the death of Parvathamma, and had petitioners 2 to 7, through her. The third petitioner filed O.S.No.137 of 2000 in the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. During the pendency of the suit, the fourth respondent is said to have approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, the third respondent, for effecting mutation in the revenue records, in her favour. Acting on the same, the third respondent made entries through order, dated 05.02.2005. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed an appeal before the second respondent under Section 5 (5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). The appeal was dismissed on 20.10.2006. The revision filed by them under Section 9 of the Act before the first respondent was dismissed on 20.10.2007. The petitioners feel aggrieved by various orders passed by respondents 1 to 3 in favour of respondent No.4. Heard Sri P.Thirumala Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, and learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6. Even from the averments in the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, and the material papers filed therein, it is evident that as many as three suits came to be filed by one individual or the other vis-à-vis the land in question. The petitioners claim rights in the estate of late Sailoo. It is not in dispute that Sailoo had a son, by name, Anjaiah through his first wife. It is no doubt true that the third respondent made entries in the revenue records in favour of the fourth respondent on 05.02.2005, by which time, O.S.No.138 of 2000 was pending. It was incumbent upon the fourth respondent to have impleaded the petitioners herein, in those proceedings, or at least to ensure that notices are served. Be that as it may, the petitioners preferred an appeal and have put forward all their contentions. In his order, dated 20.10.2006, the second respondent took the view that the entries were made on the basis of a decree in O.S.No.77 of 1976, dated 19.10.1989. Even assuming that the understanding of the third respondent was not proper, it cannot be said that the entries were made without jurisdiction. The second respondent in his order, passed in the appeal, as well as the first respondent, in his order in the revision, took the view that the parties have to abide by the result of the adjudication in civil suits. Section 8(2) of the Act makes it amply clear that any entries made or proceedings issued under the Act, would be subject to the out come of civil suits. Though the suit filed by the third petitioner was dismissed, the appeal against it is pending. The authorities have to await the outcome of the appeal. In case any decree is passed, in respect of the petitioners, allotting the share in the estate of Sailoo, the entries in the revenue records need to be modified. Various orders passed by respondents 1 to 3 have to give weight to such a decree. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that the entries made by the third respondent on 05.02.2005, and the order passed by respondents 2 and 1, on 20.10.2006 and 20.10.2007, respectively, shall be subject to the outcome of the appeal in A.S.No.31 of 2006 pending in the Court of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. It shall be open to the petitioners to file an application before the Appellate Court seeking appropriate direction to protect their interests in the land, depending on result of the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.16.02.2009. GJ