APHC010260012021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 15203/2021 Between: Gope Sai Jithin and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K V ADITYA CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. CHAVALI RAMANAND The Court made the following order: Aggrieved by the action of respondents in issuing pattadar passbook to the unofficial respondents with respect to land admeasuring Ac.8.00 cents in R.S.No.7-1A situated in Narsupeta village, Nuzvid mandal, without considering the objections raised by the petitioners, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Miss. Aarthi, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Venkata Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the 3rd respondent is the father of the petitioners and the subject property is the ancestral property. She further submitted that, when the unofficial respondents are trying to alienate the subject property, the petitioners have filed a suit vide O.S.No.1/2021 for partition and obtained temporary injunction order (dated 21.01.2021) restraining the unofficial respondents from alienating the suit schedule properties. While so, the unofficial respondents, having known that the said suit was pending adjudication, have filed another suit vide O.S.No.50/2021 and obtained an injunction order on false allegations restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. She further contended that, while two suits are pending adjudication and despite objections raised by the petitioners, the tahsildar has mutated the revenue records and issued pattadar passbook to the unofficial respondents. Copy of said mutation orders passed by the tahsildar was also not served on the petitioners. In the said circumstances, if such mutation orders are allowed to subsist, it affects the rights of the petitioners and accordingly prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue on counter submitted that, the subject property is self acquired property of the 3rd respondent (petitioners’ father) and not an ancestral property as stated by the petitioners and the petitioners’ father has sold the subject property to the unofficial respondents through registered documents. Accordingly, the tahsildar has issued pattadar passbooks in favour of unofficial respondents, after considering all the documents. As such, the petitioners cannot find fault with the revenue authorities in issuing pattadar passbook. Even otherwise, the petitioners cannot ventilate their grievance, until the rights over the subject property are decided in the civil suit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have filed a suit for partition vide O.S.No.1/2021 on the file of XV Additional District Judge, Nuzvid and similarly the unofficial respondents have filed another suit vide O.S.No.50/2021 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid. The particulars of order in the said suit were not placed on record. The record would indicate that the petitioners have some grievance against their father i.e., 3rd respondent herein. As rightly contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, unless the rights are decided in the suit filed before competent civil court, the petitioners cannot claim any rights over the subject property and subject to the outcome of the civil suit, the petitioners can take steps by approaching revenue authorities invoking the provisions of Act, 1971. The petitioners have not made any case warranting the interference of this court and this court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: “The petitioners are at liberty to take steps in accordance with law, subject to outcome of the suit filed by them.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS