IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 28818 of 2008 Between: Smt. M.Geetha W/o. M.Shanker Reddy Resident of 2-2-1075/15/A, Bagh Amberpet, hyderabad 500 013, rep. by her General Power of Attorney, Shri A.Pratap Reddy, Residing at 2- 2-1075/15/A, Bagh Amberpet, hyderabad 500 013 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Revenue Divisional officer, Ranga REddy East Division. 3 The Tahsildar, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District. 4 Shri Kotha Gopal Goud, S/o. Late K.Swamy R/o. 2-74, Rajesh Nager Colony, Chengicherla (V), Gatkesar (M), Ranga REddy District- 39 5 Shri K.Anjaiah Goud S/o. Shri K.Pochaiah R/o. 6-94, Sai Nilayam, Medipally (V), Post Boduppal, Ranga Reddy District 500 03 .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of " Writ of Mandamus" to declare the Proceedings dated 21.02.2004 of the 3rd respondent as confirmed by the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 23.07.2007 and the orders of the 1st respondent dated 25.10.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to record and violative of provisions of A.P. Rights in land and Patta Pass Book Act, 1971, and Violative of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and further declare that the petitioner herein entitles for the Pattedar Pass Book and title deeds respect of Ac.4.14 guntas in Survey No.83 situated at Chengicherla (V), Gatkesar (M), Ranga Reddy District-39 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.D.MADHAVI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 28818 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.4.14 gts. of land in Sy.No.83 in Chengicherla Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, through document No.7891/1989. A joint family, comprising of Laxmaiah and his four brothers, held an extent of Ac.39.17 gts. in different survey numbers. The total extent in Sy.No.83 is Ac.12.00. The petitioner states that, in the family partition, Ac.6.00 in a block, was allotted to the share of Laxmaiah in Sy.No.83 and out of it, he purchased Ac.4.14 guntas from sons of Laxmaiah. The petitioner approached the Tahsildar, Ghatkesar Mandal, the third respondent, with a request to enter her name in the revenue records and to issue pattadar pass books. Her request was, however, acceded to only, as regards an extent of Ac.2.19 gts., which is said to be 1/5th share of Laxmaiah in Ac.12.00 of Sy.No.83. The son and grandson of another brother of Laxmaiah by name Pochaiah executed a sale deed dated 29.09.2003 transferring Ac.2.19 gts. in Sy.No.83 in favour of one Mr. Gopal Goud, the fourth respondent, who is son of another brother of Laxmaiah by name Swamy. The fourth respondent filed O.S.No.1521 of 2005 in the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, against the petitioner complaining that she is interfering with the possession, over the land purchased by him. I.A.No.2141 of 2005 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed. CMA.No.238 of 2005 filed against it, was also dismissed by the appellate Court. The third respondent granted mutation in favour of the fourth respondent in respect of Ac.2.19 gts. of land through order dated 21.02.2004. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy (East Division), the second respondent herein, feeling aggrieved by denial of mutation in her favour as regards the balance of extent purchased by her as well as the mutation made in favour of the fourth respondent. The appeal was dismissed through order dated 23.07.2007. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision, under Section 9 of the A.P. Records of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’), before the first respondent. The revision was dismissed on 25.10.2008. Hence the writ petition. Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the claim of the petitioner that the branch of Laxmaiah was alloted an extent of Ac.6.00 in Sy.No.83 in the family partition was recognized in the suit, and in that view of the matter, there was no basis for respondents 1 and 2 in taking the view that the petitioner’s vendor got only 1/5th share in Sy.No.83. Certain other grounds are also urged. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that once all the remedies under the Act are exhausted by the petitioner, the only course open to her is to file a suit. Sri K.Mahipathy Rao, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5, submits that respondents 1 and 2 are not conferred with the power to decide the civil disputes and they have confined their adjudication to the undisputed facts. He contends that in case, the petitioner feels aggrieved by the order passed against her, she has to file a suit for declaration of title. There is no dispute as to the relationship of the family of the vendors with the petitioner. The joint family consists of five brothers and the children of one such brother sold Ac.4.14 gts. of land in favour of the petitioner. This was under the assumption that the branch of Laxmaiah was allotted and against the entire share of Ac.6.00 in Sy.No.83, Ac.4.14 gts. was sold to the petitioner. This, however, did not weigh with respondents 1 to 3. They accepted the plea of respondents 4 and 5 that each branch was given their corresponding share in each survey number and, thereby, the vendor of the petitioner could have sold only Ac.2.19 gts. of land. Various orders referred to above came to be passed by the original, appellate and revisional authorities under the Act. The nature of adjudication or determination of rights under the Act has its own limitations. Neither the authorities are conferred with the power to record evidence, nor to pronounce upon legal issues. Obviously, for this reason, Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act leaves it to the aggrieved parties to file suits and subjects the proceeding under the Act, to the outcome of the suits. Therefore, despite the fact that the matter has been subjected to adjudication by three authorities in the hierarchy, it cannot be said that there was final pronouncement upon the legal entitlement of the parties. Further, mere entries in the revenue records would not give rise to conferment of title where it does not exist, or taking away the title, if it otherwise exists. Now that the petitioner feels aggrieved not only by the denial of the entries as regards the balance of extent in Sy.No.83, but also by the entries made in favour of respondents 4 and 5, she has to file a suit for declaration of her title. So far as her possession is concerned, the matter has already reached the civil Court in the form of suit for injunction filed by the fourth respondent. The possession of the petitioner over the land in question was approved by the trial Court as well as lower appellate Court Hence, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to seek declaration of her rights over the land purchased by her by filing a suit and her possession shall stand protected in terms of the orders passed in I.A.No.2141 of 2005 in O.S.No.1521 of 2005. There shall be no order as to costs. L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:02.02.2009 usd