HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT APPEAL No. 979 OF 2007 DATED 9TH NOVEMBER, 2010. BETWEEN. P.Bala Narasaiah ….Appellant And The Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District, Khairatabad, Hyderabad and ors. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT APPEAL No. 979 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. GOPAL REDDY) When the Vacate Stay Petition is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel appearing on either side conceded for disposal of the main Writ Appeal. Hence, Writ Appeal is taken up for hearing and is being disposed of by this judgment. Questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 9.8.2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 16119 of 2007, the petitioner/appellant filed the present Writ Appeal. The writ appellant/petitioner has obtained a rule from this Court asking the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of Certiorri should not be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in Writ Petition No. 16119 of 2007 seeking, to call for the records in Proceedings No. D5/570/2006 dated 23.6.2006 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same. The facts giving rise to filing of the Writ Petition by the appellant are with regard to the rights of the land admeasuring 4.19 guntas in Sy.Nos. 4,5,19 and 20, owned by one Chinna Satyanarayana, who sold an extent of Ac.2.00 out of the total extent, to M/s. Balaji Metal Industries, represented by Nathuram, under an agreement of sale. Later the said Nathuram filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, which was decreed on 11.4.1988. After decreeing the suit, the said Chinna Satyanarayana died on 14.10.1984 and his wife Anjamma was recognized as successor by proceedings dated 1.12.1984. The sixth respondent, daughter of Satyanarayana was also granted succession by proceedings of the third respondent, dated 29.9.1987. The petitioner alleged that after death of Chinna Satyanarayana, he entered into agreement of sale dated 16.10.1985 with Smt. Anjamma to purchase an extent of Ac.1.09 guntas out of Ac.4.19 guntas. Both Smt. Anjamma and the sixth respondent-Indira have executed a registered Sale Deed in pursuance of the agreement of sale in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1.09 guntas in Sh.No. 19 in favour of the petitioner on 22.12.1989. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for rectification of entries before the Mandal Revenue Officer for mutation. Having come to know that the mutation was effected in favour of the fourth respondent, the petitioner filed an application before the Joint Collector- first respondent, who by order dated 11.08.1997 directed to delete the name of the fourth respondent. After considering the application of the petitioner, the third respondent granted pattdar pass book and title deeds (PPB/TD) by proceedings dated 24.03.1998. The fourth respondent challenged the order of the first respondent dated 11.08.1997 in Writ Petition No. 21795 of 1997. This Court set aside the order granting pattdar pass book and title deeds (PPB/TD) in favour of the petitioner by proceedings dated 24.03.1998, with liberty to the petitioner and the fourth respondent to file applications before the third respondent. The petitioner then filed an application before the third respondent, who by proceedings No.B1/101/99, dated 23.01.2002 allowed the same and directed to record the name of the petitioner as pattadar/occupant in the revenue records. The fourth respondent carried the matter in appeal before the second respondent, who confirmed the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer. The revisional authority-first respondent herein set aside the order of the second respondent. Hence this Writ Petition. It is not in dispute that the petitioner filed suit in O.S.No. 184 of 1998 for recovery of possession and the said suit was dismissed by the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 31.12.2003, finding that the appellant herein (Plaintiff in the said suit) failed to prove his ownership over the suit land, that the defendant therein (Salla Veera Reddy), fourth respondent herein, has perfected his title over the suit land by way of adverse possession and that the suit for recovery of possession filed by the plaintiff (Appellant herein) was barred by limitation. The said findings of the trial Court were confirmed by the lower appellate Court in A.S.No. 30 of 2004 and further by this Court in the judgment dated 30.11.2006 rendered in Second Appeal No. 1184 of 2006. The findings recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the lower appellate Court and further this Court was on the ground that the fourth respondent is in possession of the suit land since 12.07.1979. The suit filed by the appellant for delivery of possession of the land was barred by limitation since the same was filed after lapse of twelve years. Section 8(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 mandates that where a suit is decreed for declaration or rights of parties, entries be corrected only in conformity with the decree of civil Court. Inasmuch as the fourth respondent has perfected his title by adverse possession, the first respondent correctly came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to prove his ownership and possession and therefore, rightly ordered for mutation of the name of the fourth respondent in the revenue records as per the Section 8(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. As per Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattdar Pass Books Rules, 1989,a title deed or pass book shall be given only to those persons who are in actual possession of the land and the pattadar owners shall be given in addition to title deed in Form XIV-A, a passbook in Form XIV-B. The said rule is in conformity with Sub Section (2) of Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971, namely, the finding recorded by the competent Civil Court with regard to title and possession of the land is to be reflected in the revenue records for grant of pattadar passbooks and title deeds and required suitable corrections. In view of the foregoing discussion, no infirmity is discernable in the order passed by the Joint Collector-first respondent and the order dated 9.8.2007 in Writ Petition No. 16119 of 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court confirming the findings of the first respondent, which is impugned in this Writ Appeal. We do not see any merit in the Writ Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------ JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY ---------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA 09-11-2010 Msnro