THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No :2417 of 2008 DATED:08-02-2008 BETWEEN: Ragam Shivkumar Yadav. ..... PETITIONER AND The Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer, Malkajigiri, Rangareddy District & 5 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 2. Petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 3rd respondent pertaining to Case No.D5/3180/07, dated 06-11- 2007, confirming the orders of the respondents 1 and 2, dated 11- 12-1997 under Memo No.B/2596/97 dated 04-04-2007 under Ref.No.C/172/2006 respectively dismissing the application filed by the petitioner and to quash the same holding that it is illegal, and arbitrary. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he became the owner and possessor by virtue of an agreement of sale, dated 09-12-1992, and the settlement deed, dated 20-06-1995, in respect of the land of an extent of Ac.2.07 guntas in Sy.Nos.39, 40, 23E, 46/A situated at Kowkoor village, Malkajgiri mandal, Rangareddy District. It appears petitioner made an application, dated 02-05- 1997, requesting to mutate his name in the revenue records. Pursuant to the said application, the 1st respondent- Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer, Malkajgiri issued a memo B/2596/97, dated 11-12-1997, stating that the said land was already mutated and patta has been given in favour of one Yala Chandrareddy, Yanamala Venkat Reddy and B.Narsimha Reddy during the year, 1994-95 and therefore, the application of the petitioner to regularize the unregistered sale deed cannot be considered. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division under Section 5B of the A.P.Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act (for brevity, ‘the Act’), and the appellate authority by order, dated 04-04-2007 in No.C/172/2006 dismissed the appeal on merits. It was observed that the settlement deed was not executed by the Principle. As against the said order, petitioner filed further revision before the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector, Rangareddy District under Section 9 of the Act and the revisional authority dismissed the revision holding that a civil suit is pending before the civil Court in O.S.No.616 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District in respect of the same land and therefore, it may not be appropriate to entertain the revision pending the said civil suit. 4. Admittedly, there was no registered alienation deed in favour of the petitioner seeking to regularize the agreement of sale under Section 5A of the Act. In the instant case the said lands have already been mutated in the name of the third parties. Thus there is a dispute with regard to the title to the said property. 5. Under Section 8(2) of the Act if any person is aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by an entry made in any Record of Rights he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to set right for declaration of his right under Chapter-VI of the Specific Relief Act, and the entry in the Record of Rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the revisional authority has rightly held that unless the petitioner resolves to file civil suit and obtain an appropriate decree, he is not entitled to any relief. The revisional authority rightly directed to await the outcome of the civil suit and then approach the Recording authority for appropriate relief under the Act. Therefore, I do not see any grounds to interfere with the order of the Court below. 6. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 08th February, 2008. Tsy