THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.13029 of 2010 July 16, 2010 Between: Pitla Gangaram, S/o.Ushanna … Petitioner And The Tahsildar, Adilabad, Adilabad District And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.13029 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 08.4.2010 of eighth respondent, namely, the Joint Collector, Adilabad, who dismissed the petitioner’s revision petition under Section 9 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (RoR Act) filed against the orders of seventh respondent, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Adilabad. The petitioner allegedly purchased land admeasuring Acs.8.17 in S.No.68/11 from Tippa Narsimlu, father of respondents 3 and 4, under an agreement of sale in the year 1952. In 1992, petitioner filed O.S.No.101 of 1992 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Adilabad, for declaration of title and consequential injunction. The same was decreed ex parte on 18.2.1993. Thereafter, petitioner filed application before first respondent seeking mutation and issue of Pattadar Pass Books (PPBs). The same, presumably, was treated as an application under Section 5-A of RoR Act and was allowed regularising the sale. She again filed O.S.No.20 of 2004 for injunction. Respondents 2 and 3 filed counter claim to set aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.101 of 1992. The petitioner’s suit being O.S.No.20 of 2004 was dismissed for default and counter claim of respondents 2 and 3 was allowed. Petitioner then filed applications seeking to set aside the order dismissing the suit for default and to set aside the ex parte order in counter claim. These two applications are pending. After counter claim in O.S.No.20 of 2004 was allowed, respondents 2 to 6 approached the first respondent for grant of mutation and PPBs. By proceedings dated 15.2.1997, first respondent granted the relief. Petitioner then preferred appeal before the seventh respondent, which was dismissed on 25.10.2008 against which the petitioner unsuccessfully preferred revision before eighth respondent. The counsel for petitioner submits that when the applications filed by petitioner to set aside orders in O.S.No.20 of 2004 including the order in counter claim are pending before Civil Court, grant of PPBs in favour of contesting respondents is erroneous. He would urge that petitioner’s application under Section 5-A of RoR Act for regularization of sale was already allowed after ex parte decree in O.S.No.101 of 1992 and, therefore, remedy of contesting respondents is by way of appeal under Section 5-B of RoR Act and they could not have filed application before the original authority himself for grant of PPBs and mutation. This Court has carefully perused the material on record and after giving anxious consideration to submissions made across the Bar is not able to countenance any of the submissions. Petitioner obtained orders under Section 5-A of RoR Act regularizing alleged sale agreement, which was granted as per the ex parte decree in O.S.No.101 of 1992. When the said decree is no more in force, proceedings regularizing the sale cannot stand scrutiny. Secondly, after their counter claim was allowed, contesting respondents approached the Tahsildar for PPBs. The Tahsildar then conducted enquiry and passed orders in May 2007 implementing the decree. As rightly observed by the revisional authority, there was no irregularity in the same. The very basis of petitioner’s right was ex parte decree in O.S.No.101 of 1992 and when the same is set aside, petitioner cannot have any right. Of course, it would be different matter if petitioner’s applications statedly filed to set aside ex parte orders pending on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad, are allowed and the decree in O.S.No.101 of 1992 is ultimately restored. In a matter of this nature, when there is a rival claim between the successors of the original pattadar and subsequent purchaser under agreement of sale, remedy would be only before the Civil Court. If so advised, petitioner may prefer appeal to the Civil Court after applications are finally decided by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad. The impugned order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record. No interference is called for in this writ petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) July , 2010 YS