THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.26303 OF 2011 ORDER: The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to declare the action of the first respondent in not disposing of the suspension petition filed by the petitioners along with the appeal filed against the proceedings of the second respondent dated 18.07.2011, as illegal and arbitrary. A consequential direction is sought to the first respondent to dispose of the suspension petition filed by the petitioners forthwith. The petitioners allege that the third respondent, pursuant to the order of the second respondent dated 18.07.2011 and during the pendency of the appeal before the first respondent, has commenced construction. Admittedly, the petitioners have filed O.S.No.2176 of 2009 wherein they are said to have sought an order of temporary injunction restraining the third respondent from interfering with their possession over the land in question. Sri P. Govind Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would fairly state that the I.A. seeking temporary injunction is still pending, and no orders have been passed thereupon by the Civil Court till date. According to the Learned Counsel, the order of the second respondent dated 18.07.2011 is not only in violation of principles of natural justice but also falls foul of the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Chinnam Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal (AIR 2008 AP 15). Learned Counsel would submit that, if hearing of the appeal or the suspension petition, pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer, is delayed any further, it may then result in an irretrievable situation where the third respondent may well complete construction of buildings on the lands belonging to the petitioners. Against an order of the recording authority, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, “the Act”), an appeal lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer not only with regards any error in the entries in the record of rights, but also regarding issuance of a pattadar pass book. The question as to who is in possession of the land, or who is entitled to possession, are not matters for adjudication by the recording authority or the appellate authority under the provisions of the Act nor are they empowered under the said Act either to evict or induct any person over the land in question. The petitioners can only seek such a relief before the competent Civil Court. The petitioners, having elected to prefer an appeal under the said Act to the Revenue Divisional Officer (first respondent), now seek a direction from this Court to suspend the order of the second respondent dated 18.07.2011, on the ground that the Revenue Divisional Officer has not yet passed orders on the suspension petition filed by the petitioners before him. Passing such an order of suspension would, in effect, mean that this Court has permitted the petitioners to parallely invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for grant of the very same relief which they have sought for before the appellate authority under the Act. It would be wholly inappropriate for this Court to do so. The only order that can be passed, in such circumstances, is to direct the first respondent to dispose of the petitioners’ application, seeking suspension of the order of the Tahsildar dated 18.07.2011, at the earliest, in any event not later than ten days from today. Needless to state that the first respondent shall put both the petitioners and the third respondent on notice before any such order is passed by him. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the dispute, or regarding the validity or otherwise of the order passed by the second respondent since these are all matters which are required to be determined by the first respondent in the appeal and the suspension petition pending before him. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J September 20, 2011 Note: Issue operative portion by wire at party’s cost. B/O.MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.26303 OF 2011 September 20, 2011 MD