IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO.2651 of 2006 Between: Mallula Satyanrayana, S/o.Late Venkata Narayana, Aged 35 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Thaderu village, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasapuram, West Godavari District 2. Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District 3. Tayi Krishna Rao, S/o.Sri Rama Murthy, 47 years, Hindu, Assistant Divisional Engineer, APSEB, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 4. Tayi Subba Rao, S/o.late Sriramamurthy, Hindu, 63 years, Retired Executive Engineer, R/o.Ravindra Nilayam, Sadguru Colony, Ramavarappadu, Krishna District. 5. Tayi Rama Mani, W/o.Venkataramana, Hindu, 57 years, Retired Engineer, R/o.Apt. No.201, Emrald Block, Sri Sai Ram Manor, Pragathi Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad. 6. Tayi Sriram, S/o.Venkataranama, Hindu, 31 years, Engineer, R/o.Apt. No.210, Emerald Block, Sri Sai Ram Manor, Pragathi Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particulaly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proposed action of the 1st respondent in issuing the notice dt.30.12.2005 in proceedings No.Re.Ka. No.2832/05/K as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 1st respondent not to proceed further and drop the proceedings in Re.Ka.No.2832/05/K. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CH.DHANAMJANA Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR.KOKA SRINIVASA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents 4 to 6: MR.A.V.SESHA SAI The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.2651 of 2006 ORDER: Petitioner’s father is statedly owner of land admeasuring Acs.22.86 in survey No.631 situated at Thunduru village of Bhimavaram Mandal in West Godavari District. After death of his father, petitioner and his brothers succeeded to property. Tayi Venkataramana and others filed a suit against petitioner’s father and others for partition of the said property. In the said suit being O.S.No.36 of 1985 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Narsapur, a preliminary decree was passed. Petitioner’s father and others filed A.S.No.1858 of 1994 before this Court, which is pending. C.M.P.No.20329 of 1994 is filed in appeal seeking stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.36 of 1985. This Court granted stay. In the mean while, first respondent issued impugned notice of enquiry dated 30.12.2005 to petitioner’s father with regard to alteration/ odification/suspension of Pattadar Pass Books/Title Deeds (PPBs/TDs), aggrieved by which present writ petition is filed. Respondents 4 to 6 are impleaded subsequently. Fourth respondent filed counter affidavit along with W.V.M.P. No.655 of 2006. When the same is called, the matter is heard finally and is being disposed of by this order. There is no denial that order of this Court in C.M.P. No.20329 of 1994 dated 11.4.1997 was vacated on 7.8.2007. But A.S. No.1858 of 1994 is still pending. As per Rule 9(1)(c)(ii) of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (the Rules, for brevity), when an affidavit is filed before recording authority under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, to the effect that such person has filed a suit for declaration of title, enquiry has to be stopped. Therefore, nothing prevents petitioner to approach first respondent and file an affidavit as required under 9(1)(c) (ii) of Rules and also includes a copy of grounds of appeal and judgment impugned therein. It is then for the first respondent to take necessary action as to whether to proceed with enquiry or to wait for result of first appeal pending before this Court. At the stage of notice, merits of case cannot be gone into. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) December 24, 2008. YS To 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasapuram, West Godavari District 2. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District 3 Two CCs to Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 4 Two CD copies.