HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.15908 of 2010 Date of Order:30.03.2011 Between: M.A.Basith ..Petitioner and The Revenue Divisional Officer and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.15908 of 2010 ORDER :- Aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal filed under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for brevity, “the Act”) at the admission stage by order dated 18.05.2010, the petitioner filed the present case. He seeks a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal, the appellate authority, to entertain his appeal and decide the same on merits. The petitioner purchased an extent of land admeasuring Acs.11-06 guntas in Survey No.64 of Ranapur Village of Sarangapur Mandal, Adilabad District in the auction sale conducted in E.P.No.3 of 1985 in O.S.No.9 of 1962 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Nirmal. Mutation was sanctioned in his favour in the year 1987. While so, as the Tahsildar, Sarangapur Mandal granted pattadar passbook bearing No.129172 dated 17.05.2006 in favour of the 3rd respondent herein in respect of part of the land purchased by him, being an extent admeasuring Acs.3-04 guntas in Survey No.64 of Ranapur village, without notice to the petitioner, he filed the subject appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal, under Section 5(5) of the Act. Simultaneously, he instituted a suit in O.S.No.80 of 2005 before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal against the 3rd respondent and obtained status quo orders against him. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal by the impugned order, dated 18.05.2010, however dismissed this appeal at the stage of admission. Hence, this writ petition. Heard Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the authorities. Perusal of the impugned order dated 18.05.2010 reflects that the appellate authority, having referred to the factual aspects viz., the purchase of the subject land by the petitioner through a court sale and the institution of an injunction suit by him, baldly stated that there was no need to interfere in the case when the matter was under trial before the civil court. This approach on the part of the appellate authority is not in keeping with the statutory provisions. Section 8(2) of the Act speaks of a person aggrieved by any entry in the record of rights instituting a suit for declaration of his right and mandates that the entry in the record of rights has to be amended in accordance with such declaration. In the present case, the petitioner merely filed a suit for an injunction against the 3rd respondent, while separately challenging the action of the revenue authorities in issuing the 3rd respondent a pattadar passbook in respect of part of the land, which the petitioner had purchased in the court auction. The two issues are therefore separate and independent and the appellate authority ought not to have denied consideration of the petitioner’s appeal on merits merely because of the pendency of the injunction suit. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the order dated 18.05.2010 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal in Case No.B/1368/10. The matter is remitted to the said authority for consideration afresh on merits in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________ SANJAY KUMAR, J March 30, 2011 Lmv