THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.2439, 2440, 2441, 2442 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: These four writ petitions are filed against a common order, dated 06.11.2008, passed by the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District, the first respondent herein, in four revisions filed by the respective petitioners herein under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioners purchased different extents of land in various survey numbers of Puppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, through registered sale deeds. Based on the sale deeds, the entries in the revenue records were mutated in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the contesting respondents herein filed appeals before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District, the second respondent herein. The appeals were dismissed vide orders, dated 25.01.2008. There upon, they filed revisions before the first respondent. Through a common order, dated 06.11.2008, the first respondent had set aside the entries made in favour of the petitioners by the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the third respondent herein, leaving it open to the petitioners to file a suit to establish their rights. In the penultimate paragraph of the order, he made reference to the sale deeds and other proceedings in favour of the contesting respondents. The petitioners filed O.S.Nos.1286, 1287 and 1288 of 2008 in the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Raga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, impleading all the contesting respondents, for the relief of declaration of title and cancellation of the entries made by the third respondent in favour of the contesting respondents as well as the sale deeds in their favour. The grievance of the petitioners is that an observation made by the first respondent in his order is likely to be treated as final, during the course of final hearing of the suits. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, who filed caveat. The various steps contemplated under the Act, such as making of entries or modifications thereof, do not confer title by themselves. That is the reason why, Section 8(2) provides for filing of a suit and any adjudication in the suit would outweigh the entries made in the revenue records. Obviously, in view of the observation made by the first respondent in the impugned order, the petitioners filed suits. Their limited grievance is about the observation made by the first respondent as regards the sale deeds and entries in favour of the contesting respondents. The reference was almost in the course of narration. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the first respondent had added finality to any of those aspects. Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of making it clear that any observations made by the first respondent in the impugned order, dated 06.11.2008, are tentative and subject to the adjudication of the civil Court in the suits referred to above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:12.02.2009 kdl