IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 15690 of 2008 Between: Bodikela Kurma Gangadhar S/o. Ganganna R/o. Kankata Village, Mandal: Sarangapur Dist: Adilabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal Mandal: Nirmal, Dist: Adilabad. 2 The District Collector, Adilabad, Dist: Adilabad. 3 Smt. Gangavva W/o. Pothanna R/o. Kankata Village Mandal: Sarangapur, Dist: Adilabad. ...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, questioning the Proceedings Rc.No.B/3728/06 dated : 16.01.2008 passed by the 1st respondent herein is arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the provisions under A.P.Rights in Land & Pattedar Pass books Act, 1971 ( As amended by Act 16 of 2001 ) and consequently suspend the proceedings Rc.No.B/3728/2006 dated: 16.01.2008 passed by the 1st respondent herein. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.V.RAMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.3: Mr.S.Niranjan Reddy The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the lands bearing Sy.No.84/2 admeasuring Ac.4.05 guntas and Sy.No.108/2 admeasuring Ac.1.06 guntas situated at Kankata Village of Sarangapur Mandal of Adilabad District having purchased the same under registered sale deeds dated 8.2.2006. Thereafter, pursuant to the application made by him, after conducting necessary enquiries, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Sarangapur had issued the Pattedar Pass Book and Title deeds to him on 13.6.2006. While the matters stood thus, the 3rd respondent herein made a representation to the 1st respondent – Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Nirmal stating that she along with one B.Ganganna are enjoying the said lands for the last 20 years by virtue of family partition and without her knowledge, the vendor of the petitioner has sold away the said lands to the petitioner herein and, therefore, sought to cancel the registered sale deeds of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer after obtaining a report from the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer and the Sub-Inspector of Police has passed the impugned order staying the pattadar pass books and title deeds granted in favour of the petitioner herein though the report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer clearly indicate that the name of the unoﬃcial respondent is not found either as a pattadar or as cultivator from 1979-80 till the date of the report. It is also stated that the petitioner has also ﬁled a suit O.S.No.144 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal against one Kudire Laxmaiah and Pothanna for perpetual injunction and on the strength of the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer staying the pattadar pass books and title deeds, the I.A.No.269 of 2006 ﬁled by the petitioner in the said suit was dismissed without appreciating the material. Hence this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer’s report clearly states that the name of the 3rd respondent does not ﬁnd place in the pahanies from 1979 till the date of the report submitted in the year 2006, either in the pattadar pass book or as a cultivator, when the representation of the 3rd respondent, which is being treated as an appeal came up on 21.11.2006, without disposing of the same, the impugned order is passed stating that unless the suit is disposed of, no further action is required to be taken in the case and hence sought for setting aside the said order. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader as well as the counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer has entertained the representation of the 3rd respondent by treating it as an appeal and after obtaining a report from the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, the present order is passed and hence there is no reason to interfere with the said order. A perusal of the material produced before the Court clearly indicates that no appeal, in fact, was ﬁled by the 3rd respondent and it is only a representation, which is being entertained and an interim order is passed on 21.11.2006 stating that since there is prima facie evidence of enjoyment of the unoﬃcial respondent herein in half of the suit land, the operation of pattadar pass book and title deed granted in favour of the writ petitioner herein are stayed till the title over the suit land is decided by the Court. But, a perusal of the report of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer dated 15.11.2006 indicates that the 3rd respondent’s name is not found in pahanies from 1977-80 till the date of the report. That apart, the civil suit viz., O.S.No.144 of 2006 ﬁled before the Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal is only for permanent injunction and not for a title declaration. In the circumstances, since the petitioner has already entered appearance before the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, without going into the merits of the matter, the 1st respondent is directed to hear the matter and pass appropriate orders taking into consideration the report and any material submitted by the petitioner herein without reference to the dismissal order passed by the lower Court in I.A.No.269 of 2006 expeditiously. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. N.V.RAMANA,J DT 2.9.2008 msv .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal Mandal: Nirmal, Dist: Adilabad. 2 The District Collector, Adilabad, Dist: Adilabad. 3 2CCs to the Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (OUT). 4 2CD copies