THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT APPEAL No. 648 of 2010 Dated: 15-9-2010 Between: Pitla Gangaram ….Appellant And The Tahsildar, Adilabad, Adilabad District and others …Respondents. JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The appeal is misconceived. The appellant filed W.P.No. 13029 of 2010 seeking quashing of an order of the Joint Collector, dated 8-4-2010. The relevant factual matrix is as under: The petitioner allegedly purchased an extent of Ac.8-17 of agricultural land in Sy.No. 68/11 from one Narsimlu, the father of respondents 3 and 4 under an agreement of sale in 1952. In 1992 he filed O.S.No. 101 of 1992 before the Court of the Junior Civil Judge (the then District Munsif), Adilabad for declaration of his title to the property and consequent injunction. The said suit was decreed exparte, on 18-2-1993. Thereafter he filed an application before the 1st respondent for mutation and issue of pattadar passbooks under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the ROR Act’). This was apparently treated as an application under Section 5-A of the Act and was allowed. The petitioner thereafter filed O.S.No. 20 of 2004, seeking a permanent injunction against respondents 2 and 3 from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the selfsame property. The respondents 2 and 3 filed a counter-claim in O.S.No. 20 of 2004 seeking invalidation of the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 101 of 1992. The petitioner’s suit O.S.No. 20 of 2004 was dismissed for default and the counter-claim of respondents 2 and 3 was allowed. Consequently the exparte decree dated 18-2-1993 in O.S.No. 101 of 1992 stood eclipsed. The petitioner appears to have filed applications for setting aside the order dismissing O.S.No. 20 of 2004 for default and for recalling the order allowing the counter-claim. These applications are stated to be pending adjudication. Respondents 2 to 6 approached the Tahsildar, Adilabad, the 1st respondent for grant of mutation in their favour and for issue of pattadar passbooks, on the strength of their counter-claim in O.S.No. 20 of 2004 having been allowed. The 1st respondent on 15-2-1997 granted mutation and pattadar passbook in favour of respondents 2 to 6, apparently without recalling the earlier grant of pattadar passbook and title deeds in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer under the provisions of the ROR Act, which was dismissed on 25-10-2008. The petitioner then preferred a revision to the Joint Collector, which was also rejected. He then preferred the writ petition, which was dismissed by the judgment under appeal. The learned single Judge has recorded an impeccable finding that since the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 101 of 1992 declaring the title of the petitioner was eclipsed, in view of the counter-claim of respondents 2 and 3 in O.S.No. 20 of 2004 having been allowed, the very basis of the petitioner’s right for grant of pattadar passbook and title deed stood obliterated and the appropriate remedy, should the petitioner be so advised, was to approach the civil court instead of perambulating the the office of Mandal Revenue Officer. In any event the order of a revenue authority issuing pattadar passbooks or title deeds does not amount to any substantive declaration of title, under the provisions of the ROR Act. We find no error in the application of law or in the exercise of discretion by the learned single Judge, warranting interference in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 15th September, 2010 GRR