HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G.S. SINGHVI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Appeal No.1323 of 2006 Between: Kura Laxmaiah … Appellant And The Joint Collector, Nalgonda and four others … Respondents ::JUDGMENT:: Counsel for the appellant : Shri A. Sudarshan Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5: Shri N. Vasudeva Reddy February 23, 2007 Per C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J This is an appeal for setting aside order dated 29-11-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge who refused to interfere with the order dated 21-11-2006 passed by Joint Collector, Nalgonda (respondent No.1) in proceedings No.F2/7129/2006. The appellant claims to be the owner of land measuring Ac.15.32 gts. comprised in Survey No.26, Ac.7.36 gts. comprised in Survey No.30 and Ac.17.34 gts. comprised in Survey No.31 of Bhongir Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. He filed an appeal before Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir (respondent No.2) questioning the mutations made by Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhongir (respondent No.3) in favour of Gaddameedi Saibaba and Gaddameedi Sankar Rao (respondent Nos.4 and 5). After holding an enquiry, respondent No.2 vide his order dated 31-1-2004 remanded the case to respondent No.3. After remand, respondent No.3 passed an order on 30-9-2005 cancelling the mutation made in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 challenged the same by filing an appeal. After some time, they filed a revision before respondent No.1 questioning order dated 31-1-2004 passed by respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 admitted the revision petition and suspended the order of respondent No.2. The appellant challenged order dated 21-11-2006 passed by respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.24693 of 2006, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge with an observation that the order passed by respondent No.1 is fair and just. We have heard Shri A. Sudershan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri N. Vasudeva Reddy for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that by having submitted to the jurisdiction of respondent No.3 and having suffered an adverse order, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are estopped from questioning the legality of order dated 31-1-2004 and, in any case, during the pendency of the appeal, they could not have availed the remedy of revision for nullification of order dated 31-1-2004. Learned counsel then argued that the order passed by respondent No.3 has worked itself out and, therefore, the learned Single Judge should not have dismissed the writ petition. Shri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 invited our attention to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of his clients and in particular, paragraph 12 of the same in which it is stated that even before filing of revision petition under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 before respondent No.1, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had withdrawn the appeal filed by them. He then submitted that the very foundation of the writ petition ceased to exist with the withdrawal of appeal preferred by respondent Nos.4 and 5. In our opinion, once the appeal preferred by respondent Nos.4 and 5 had been withdrawn, the revision filed by them cannot be treated as not maintainable. In the proceedings of the revision petition, it is open to the appellant to raise all the contentions which are legally permissible including the contention that in view of the order of respondent No.2 having become final and having worked out itself, the revision petition before respondent No.1 does not survive for consideration. As regards possession of the property, we deem it just and proper to direct both the parties to maintain status quo as it is obtaining today till the disposal of the revision petition by respondent No.1. Subject to the above observations, the writ appeal is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ appeal, WAMP No.2810 of 2006 filed by the appellant for interim relief is disposed of as infructuos. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J G.S. SINGHVI, CJ February 23, 2007 ks