THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 8214 of 2008 Order: Questioning the order dated 23.02.2008, passed by the 1st respondent, namely the Joint Collector, Vizianagaram, confirming the order dated 27.10.2007, passed by the 2nd respondent, namely the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Vizianagaram, allowing the application ﬁled by the 4th respondent, seeking cancellation of the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner states that his wife, late Smt. Krishnaveni, purchased an extent of Acs. 7-58½ cents in Sy. No. 197/1, Kothavalasa Revenue village, under four registered sale deeds dated 16.12.1978, 24.03.1979, 30.07.1979 and 23.09.1981. That he has a son and a daughter, who is the 4th respondent. He states that his wife died on 13.07.1994, and that during her lifetime on 07.07.1984, she executed a will in his favour bequeathing the land in question and certain other properties. After the death of his wife, the petitioner states that on the strength of the will executed by his wife in his favour, he made a representation for issuance of pattadar books and title deeds, and that the then Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Kothavalasa Mandal, after due enquiry, issued the same to him. While so, the petitioner states that the 4th respondent made a representation to the 2nd respondent, namely the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Vizianagaram, stating that her mother executed registered will dated 26.03.1992, that she is in possession of same, and that the petitioner making false representation obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds, and requested him to cancel the said pattadar books and title deeds and issue the same in his favour. The 2nd respondent forwarded the said representation to the 3rd respondent, namely the Tahsildar, Kothavalasa, who having conducted an enquiry, submitted his report. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, considered the claim of the petitioner, the 4th respondent and after perusing the report of the 3rd respondent, vide orders dated 29.10.2007 cancelled the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner and directed him to issue the pattadar pass books and title deeds to eligible person. In pursuance of the said order, the 3rd respondent considered the matter on merits, and passed orders dated 25.01.2008, for issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner ﬁled revision before the 1st respondent, who by reason of the order dated 23.02.2008, impugned in this writ petition, confirmed the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent without verifying the facts and genuineness of the documents, has cancelled the pattadar pass books and titled deeds obtained by him, on the erroneous conclusion that he had obtained the same by misrepresentation. He submitted that the will dated 07.07.1984 produced by the petitioner, which was executed by his wife in his favour, is genuine one, but the 3rd respondent, while conducting enquiry in pursuance of the order of the 2nd respondent has without issuing any notice, merely relying on the alleged will dated 25.03.1992, produced by the 4th respondent, has issued the pattadar pass books and title deeds in her favour. He submitted that the 1st respondent also without applying his mind to the facts of the case, and without verifying the facts and the genuineness of the documents, has conﬁrmed the orders of the 2nd respondent, canceling the pattadar pass books and title deeds given to the petitioner by the then Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Kothavalasa, which is illegal and arbitrary. Respondent No. 3 ﬁled counter. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 reiterating the counter averments submitted that the 4th respondent ﬁled representation before the 2nd respondent stating that her mother had bequeathed the property in question in her favour by registered will dated 25.03.1992 and requested to cancel the pattadar pass books and title deeds obtained by the petitioner, and since the petitioner obtained the pattadar pass books and title deeds from the then Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Kothavalasa, on the strength of will dated 07.07.1984, by misrepresentation and without bringing to his notice the will dated 25.03.1992, executed by his wife in favour of the 4th respondent, the 2nd respondent cancelled the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued to the petitioner, and directed the 3rd respondent to conduct enquiry and issue pattadar pass books and title deeds to the genuine person. In pursuance of the said order, the 3rd respondent issued notice to the petitioner calling upon him to surrender the pattadar pass books and title deeds, but he neither surrendered the pattadar pass books and title deeds nor responded to the notice, and therefore, the 3rd respondent conducted enquiry, and after examining the witnesses to the will dated 25.03.1992, the 3rd respondent issued pattadar pass books and title deeds to the 4th respondent. He submitted that all the proceedings in question were conducted by the authorities under the provisions of the A.P. Right in Land & Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, and denied that the 2 nd respondent and the 1st respondent without verifying the facts and documents, passed the impugned orders. He thus prayed that the writ petition ﬁled by the petitioner be dismissed. The 4th respondent also ﬁled counter along with the application for vacating the stay. The learned counsel appearing on her behalf submitted that the petitioner suppressing the will dated 25.03.1992 executed by her mother in her favour, made representation obtained the pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the land in question. He submitted that the mother of the 4th respondent signs in Telugu, but in the will produced by the petitioner, the signature of her mother is in English. He submitted that the 4th respondent is the legal heir of her mother, and that since the petitioner obtained the pattadar pass books and title deeds from the then Mandal Revenue, Kothavalasa, by misrepresentation, the same were cancelled by the 2nd respondent after due enquiry. Thereupon, as per the directions of the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent conducted enquiry, and having found that the will produced by the 4th respondent is genuine, the 3rd respondent directed issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds, and according they were issued to her on 25.01.2008. He contended that the order passed by the 2nd respondent as conﬁrmed by the 1st respondent in revision, is based on the veriﬁcation of the records produced before them, and as such, they cannot be said to have passed the said orders, without verifying the records. He thus submitted that no interference is called for therewith. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused orders impugned. As can be seen from the material produced and the orders impugned in this writ petition, the claim of the petitioner of the land in question is based on the will dated 07.07.1984, said to have been executed by his wife, who is the mother of the 4th respondent, while the claim of the 4th respondent of the land in question is based on the will dated 25.03.1992. It is the case of the 4th respondent that the petitioner suppressing the factum of the subsequent will dated 25.03.1992 executed by her mother in her favour, obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds from the then Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Kothavalasa on the basis of the will dated 07.07.1984. The will produced by the petitioner is signed in English, while the will produced by the 4th respondent is in Telugu. On the representation made by the 4th respondent, the 2nd respondent caused an enquiry, and upon noticing that the petitioner had suppressed the factum of the second will, executed by his wife in favour of the 4th respondent, and considering the fact that the petitioner’s wife was in the habit of signing in Telugu and not English, disbelieved the will produced by the petitioner, and by order dated 29.10.2007, cancelled the pattadar pass books and title deeds obtained by the petitioner, and directed the 3rd respondent to conduct enquiry and issue pattadar pass books and title deeds to genuine persons. In pursuance of the said order, the 3rd respondent appears to have issued notice to the petitioner, but he failed to surrender. Since the petitioner failed to produce the documents in support of his case, the 3rd respondent, passed orders for issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the 4th respondent. Be that as it may, it was brought to the notice of the Court by the petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition, he ﬁled suit in O.S. No. 20 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the District Court, Vizianagaram, against the 4th respondent and three others seeking declaration that he is the owner of the land in question on the basis of the will dated 07.07.1984 executed by his wife in his favour, and for permanent injunction. Since the petitioner has already ﬁled suit seeking declaration of title, there is no need to express any opinion on the merits of the matter, for in the event of the petitioner succeeding in the suit, he can make a request to the revenue authorities, to issue pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the land in question, in terms of the said order of the civil court. For the foregoing reasons, I ﬁnd no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 25th September, 2008 KSR