IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.120 OF 2009 Between: Christian Outreach Uplifting New Tribes ..... PETITIONER AND The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.120 OF 2009 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning the order, dated 20.12.2008, issued in proceedings case No.D5/362/2008, by respondent No.1, with a consequential direction to respondent No.3 not to issue Succession Certificate and Pattadar Pass Books to respondent Nos.4 to 7 with regard to land admeasuring Ac.2-00 covered by Survey No.19 of Chengicherla Village of Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The name of late Sri B. Balaiah was recorded as pattadar and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.2-00 covered by Survey No.19 of Chengicherla Village of Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. After the death of said Balaiah, Smt. Ramulamma, who is the wife of late Balaiah, respondent No.4 herein, filed an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer of Ghatkesar Mandal, for grant of Succession in respect of the aforesaid piece of land. On the application made by respondent No.4, an enquiry was conducted through the Mandal Revenue Inspector of Ghatkesar Mandal, who reported that late Balaiah, S/o. B. Mallaiah, was the pattadar of the aforesaid land and he expired on 02.03.2001, leaving behind his wife Smt. Ramulamma; sons Sri B. Venkatesh, Sri B. Sridhar Babu and Sri B. Krishna Murthy; and daughter Smt. Manohara Bai, as legal heirs. Based on the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, the Tahsildhar has ordered Succession in favour of wife and sons of late Balaiah, who are respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein, by order, dated 21.12.2006, issued in proceedings bearing D.Dis.No.B1/1101/06. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the petitioner herein carried the matter by way of an appeal under Sub- Section 5 of Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, “the Act”). The appellate authority by order, dated 08.10.2007, issued proceedings bearing No.A2/2391/2007, recording a finding that in the pahanies filed by the petitioner herein for the years 2000 – 2001, 2004 – 2005 and 2005- 2006, the name of the petitioner was shown as the possessor, and set aside the proceedings, dated 21.12.2006, on the ground that the petitioner was not given opportunity by the Mandal Revenue Officer and with a further direction to the Mandal Revenue Officer to take up fresh enquiry and finalise the matter. 4. As against the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein carried the matter in revision before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. The Revisional authority, by impugned order, dated 20.12.2008, allowed the revision filed by respondent Nos.4 to 7 by recording a finding that the Revenue Divisional Officer without passing the orders on merit, simply remanded the matter. In the aforesaid order, a reference was also made to the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.9 of 2004 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, which was dismissed by judgment and decree, dated 13.10.2008. 5. In this Writ Petition, it is contended by Sri J. Somasundaram, learned counsel for petitioner, that in view of the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer granting Succession in favour of respondents 4 to 7 for the land in question, the recording authority made wrong entries with regard to possessory column also. It is submitted that as the petitioner came into possession pursuant to agreement of sale executed by late Balaiah, there is no reason to record the names of respondents 4 to 7 in possessory column. 6. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 7 that, at the first instance, the petitioner herein filed O.S.No.247 of 1998 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking specific performance of agreement of sale with regard to the very same land in question during the life time of Balraj alias Balaiah, but the said suit was dismissed as abated, as legal representatives of late Balaiah were not brought on record. It is further submitted that subsequently, O.S.No.9 of 2004 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, was filed by the petitioner against respondent Nos.4 to 7, who are the legal heirs of late Balaiah, for the very same relief and the same was dismissed on merits by judgement and decree, dated 13.10.2008, and the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said judgement and decree, was also withdrawn subsequently. The very claim of the petitioner is pursuant to agreement of sale. In view of the dismissal of the suit filed by him, the petitioner cannot claim any title to the property. 7. Although it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that in view of the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, incorrect entries are made with regard to possessory column in pahani patrikas for the land in question, the same cannot be gone into in the present proceedings. The order of the Mandal Revenue Officer is confined to grant of succession rights in view of the death of the original pattadar, namely, Sri B.Balaiah. In succession proceedings, the scope of inquiry is limited to ascertain as to who are the legal heirs of the deceased pattadar, so as to record their names in revenue records. When the relationship of the unofficial respondents herein with Late Sri B. Balaiah is not in dispute, the petitioner, relying on the agreement of sale stated to have been executed by Late Balaiah, cannot question the order granting succession on the application of respondents 4 to 7. It is also to be noticed that basing on the very agreement of sale, the petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance, in O.S.No.9 of 2004 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, but the same was dismissed by a judgment and decree dated 13.10.2008. It is also not in dispute that the appeal filed against such judgment and decree is also withdrawn, and thus, the judgment of the trial Court has become final. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot have any legitimate claim over the land in question, so as to question the impugned orders granting succession in favour of respondents 4 to 7. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the order, dated 20.12.2008, passed by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J July 11, 2011 MD/ajr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY W.P.No.120 OF 2009 July 11, 2011