THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7700 of 2009 ORDER: The fourth respondent filed an application under Section 5-A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Tahsildar, Mirdoddi Mandal, Medak District, the second respondent herein, with a prayer to valid a transaction in relation to an extent of Acs.4.30 guntas of land in Survey No.801 of Chepial Village, Mirdoddi Mandal, Medak District. According to him, the property was sold in his favour under an unregistered document by the father of the petitioners herein. The second respondent passed an order in the year 1991 in favour of the fourth respondent and issued a certificate in Form 13-B validating the transaction. The petitioners filed an appeal under Section 5-B of the Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, Medak District, the first respondent herein. The appeal was disposed of through an order, dated 30.06.2001, directing the second respondent to cause fresh enquiry. However, the certificate in Form 13-B was not set aside or interfered with. Smt.Andem Lachavva W/o.Durgaiah and Smt.Andem Rangavva W/o.Agaiah filed a revision before the Joint Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy, the third respondent herein, feeling aggrieved by the certificate in Form 13-B issued in favour of the fourth respondent. After calling for reports from respondents 1 and 2, the third respondent dismissed the revision, through an order, dated 06.04.2006. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the said order. It is contended that the order passed by the third respondent would virtually frustrate and pre-empt the steps to be taken in pursuance of the order, dated 30.06.2001, passed by the first respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioners, no doubt, availed the remedy of appeal, feeling aggrieved by the validation proceedings in favour of the fourth respondent. However, the certificate issued in Form 13-B was neither interfered with nor set aside. Therefore, no meaningful exercise can be expected from the order passed by the first respondent. The third respondent passed an independent order in a revision filed by a different set of people. The revision was dismissed. That, by itself, does not bring about any different or independent situation. If the petitioners still feel aggrieved, they have to file a suit as provided for, under Section 8(2) of the Act. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail the remedy of suit for declaration of their title or to assail the order passed under Section 5-A of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:17.04.2009 kdl