Kolagani Geetha Rani, v. The State Of Telangana, Rep.By Its Principal Secretary,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR WRI T PETI TI ON No.38310 OF 2016 ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 4. With their consent, the present writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

2.

Since this Court is not going into the merits of the case, it may not necessary to issue notice to respondents 5 to 7. 3.

The present Writ Petition came to be filed with the following prayer:

"to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.3 in deciding the title and ownership of the property vide proceedings in file No.B/4296/2016, dated 06-10-2016 served to the petitioner on 04-11-2016, in contrary to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial passed in O.S.No.153/2012, dated 20-11-2014 and directing the respondent No.4 to change the entries in the revenue records as illegal, arbitrary, extra judicious and violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-a-side the same."

4.

The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent - Sub Collector, should not have gone into the issue of title to the property since the Civil Court in O.S.No.153 of 2012 has already decided the said issue.

CPK,J WP_38310_2016 5.

It is to be noticed that against an order passed by the 3rd respondent, a revision under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in lands and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') would lie before the Joint Collector. Without availing the remedy provided under the Act, the petitioner approached this Court directly questioning the said order on merits.

6.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he intends to prefer a revision, but his rights over the property may be protected for sometime.

7.

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that such a request made by the petitioner may be ordered provided the petitioner files a revision before the appropriate authority in proper form. 8.

Having regard to the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to prefer a revision before the Joint Collector, Jagtial, within a period of one (01) week from today along with stay application, in which event, the said Joint Collector shall decide the said application after hearing the petitioner and also the aggrieved persons, who are shown as respondents in this writ petition and pass orders thereon, in accordance with law. Till then, there shall be status quo as on today with regard to entries in the register. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTI CE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR Date:08.11.2016 INL