THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.158 of 2008 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner seeks a mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in not issuing him pattadar passbook and title deed under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, with regard to the land admeasuring Ac.0.80 cents, Acs.1.80 cents and Ac.0.60 cents, covered by Survey Nos.131, 464/1b and 468/2c respectively, of Bollapalli Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, as illegal and arbitrary. Originally, the above said land was held by one Gottipati Koteshwar Rao and his son late Gottipati Hanumantha Rao. They executed agreement of sale, dated 13.07.1985, in favour of Sri Naga Bairu Nageshwara Rao. When they did not execute the sale deed, the said Nageshwara Rao filed O.S.No.28 of 1986 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, for specific performance of the agreement of sale. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree, dated 28.10.1996, and the same was confirmed by the learned District Judge, Ongole, by judgment and decree, dated 03.02.2004, in A.S.No.200 of 1996. Pursuant thereto, the said Nageshwara Rao filed E.P.No.10 of 2004. Thereupon, the sale deed was executed and was registered and possession was also delivered to him on 28.08.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the land from the said Nageshwara Rao through a registered sale deed, dated 01.11.2006. It is stated that pattadar passbook and title deed were already issued in favour of the vendor of the petitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that after purchase of aforesaid land by him, when he submitted an application to the first respondent – Tahsildar, Martur Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, for issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed, the first respondent through endorsement bearing Rc.No.A/442/07, dated 18.10.2007, referring to an order passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, in I.A.No.1533 of 2007 in O.S.No.262 of 2007, rejected for the same. I have perused the copy of the said order, dated 22.10.2007 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki. One Gottipati Hemanth filed O.S.No.262 of 2007 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, for partition of plaint ‘A’ schedule properties, against the original owners and obtained ad interim injunction from alienating the suit schedule properties, vide order, dated 22.10.2007 in I.A.No1533 of 2007 filed therein. Referring to such order passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, the claim of the petitioner for issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed was refused by the first respondent, through endorsement, dated 18.10.2007. It is the case of the petitioner that the ad interim injunction order, dated 22.10.2007, passed in I.A.No.1533 of 2007 in O.S.No.262 of 2007, will not operate against him as it only prohibits the respondents/defendants in the said suit, from alienating the suit schedule properties. It is submitted that when O.S.No.28 of 1986 filed by the vendor of the petitioner was decreed and confirmed by the lower appellate Court and when the name of such person was entered in the revenue records and he was issued pattadar passbook and title deed, there is no reason or justification in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed in his favour. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents that in view of pendency of O.S.No.262 of 2007, request of the petitioner was not considered by the first respondent. It is to be noted that vendor of the petitioner was already succeeded in O.S.No.28 of 1986 filed for specific performance of agreement of sale. The said suit was decreed on 28.10.1996 and the same was confirmed in A.S.No.200 of 1996 by judgment, dated 03.02.2004. Vendor of the petitioner has already got executed the decree and he was also put in possession of the land in question. Pursuant thereto, pattadar passbook and title deed were already issued in favour of the vendor of the petitioner. In such event, there is no reason for not considering the application of the petitioner for issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed in his favour. Though the petitioner seeks to declare the action of the respondents in not issuing pattadar passbook and title deed in his favour, as illegal, in the absence of he being not a party in I.A.No.1533 of 2007 in O.S.No.262 of 2007, no positive direction can be given to the respondents for issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed in his favour, but, at the same time, the order, dated 22.10.2007, passed in I.A.No.1533 of 2007 in O.S.No.262 of 2007 cannot be the basis to reject the claim of the petitioner for not issuing pattadar passbook and title deed. The said order merely restrains the respondents/defendants therein from alienating the suit schedule properties. Further, the petitioner has already purchased the land in question, as such, his claim could not have been rejected based on the order, dated 22.10.2007, passed in I.A.No.1533 of 2007 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki. For the aforesaid reasons, the endorsement, dated 18.10.2007, made by the first respondent is hereby quashed with the direction to the first respondent to consider the application of the petitioner afresh without reference to the order, dated 22.10.2007, passed in I.A.No.1533 of 2007 in O.S.No.262 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (2) months from today. It is needless to observe that before issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed, I am sure, the first respondent will give notice to the affected parties and follow the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th NOVEMBER, 2010. kvni