HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G.S. SINGHVI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Appeal No.48 of 2007 Between: Devella Madhav … Appellant And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by District Collector, Karimnagar, and four others … Respondents ::JUDGMENT:: Counsel for the appellant : Shri Jayanthi S.C. Sekhar January 17, 2007 Per G.S. Singhvi, CJ This is an appeal for setting aside order dated 04-01-2007 vide which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing notice issued by Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani, Karimnagar District (respondent No.1) on the application filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 5. The main thrust of the appellant’s challenge to the notice issued by respondent No. 1 is that the land comprised in Survey No.88 situated at Manthani, Karimnagar District is entered in his name; that the application filed by respondent No.3 for correction of entries in the revenue records was dismissed by respondent No.1 vide his order dated 17-1-2004, and that the suit filed by respondent No.3 is pending in the civil court and yet respondent No.1 has entertained the second application and issued notice to him i.e. the appellant. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by recording the following observations: “The petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 are claiming a share in the land in Survey No.88. The suit filed by the respondents 3 to 5, being O.S.No.11 of 2004, for partition and separate possession is also pending. It is no doubt true that when a civil suit is pending for declaration of title, a recording authority or revenue authority cannot interfere in the matter. This is, however, cannot be a ground to prohibit RDO from conducting preliminary enquiry. It is always open to the parties to the enquiry to produce necessary evidence and seek postponement of enquiry by RDO. Liberty is reserved to the parties to do so. As and when the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 produce necessary documents before RDO, he may pass appropriate orders keeping in view the fact that respondents 3 to 5 filed O.S.No.11 of 2004 for partition and separate possession.” We have heard Smt. Jayanthi S.C. Sekhar, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. In our opinion, the writ petition filed by the appellant was premature inasmuch as the Revenue Divisional Officer has not passed any order adversely affecting his right and, therefore, the learned Single Judge did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the same. Even otherwise, the appellant’s right has been amply protected by the learned Single Judge by giving him opportunity to produce evidence and even seek postponement of the enquiry pending before respondent No.1. With the above observation, the appeal is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the appeal, WAMP No. 76 of 2007 filed by the appellant for interim relief is also dismissed. G.S. SINGHVI, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J January 17, 2007 ks