APHC010528472021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: G K Vijayalakshmi The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B SARVOTHAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. SRIDEVI JAMPANI The Court made the following order: Questioning the order of respondent No.2 12.11.2021, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri B.Sarvotham Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Venkata Satyanarayana IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 245/2022 ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: B SARVOTHAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): following order: Questioning the order of respondent No.2 vide Rc.E.2187/2021, dated the present Writ Petition is filed. B.Sarvotham Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Venkata Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for official IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) Rc.E.2187/2021, dated B.Sarvotham Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, , learned Assistant Government Pleader for official 2 respondents and Smt Sridevi Jampani, learned counsel for unofficial respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that basing on the representation of unofficial respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, without any authority or jurisdiction has passed the impugned order and thereby kept the property belonging to the petitioner in dispute register. He further contended that the petitioner got filed a suit vide O.S.No.197 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Adoni against her vendor and respondent No.4 seeking to execute registered sale deed in her favour and to cancel the registered sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.4. The said fact was within the knowledge of the Revenue Divisional Officer. In spite of the same, he has passed the impugned orders. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed and this Court vide order dated 07.01.2022 granted interim stay of impugned order. As such, prayed to pass orders treating the interim order as final order. In support of his contention, he relied on Ratnamma v. RDO, Dharmavaram. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit, contended that the writ petitioner has not made any attempt to get unregistered document regularized under Section 5A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar 3 Passbook Act, 1971, as such, the same has no validity to determine the ownership and title. Respondent No.3 has submitted a detailed report to the Revenue Divisional Officer for necessary orders and the report of respondent No.3 has treated as an appeal and respondent No.2 has issued notice to both parties and conducted enquiry under ROR Act and passed the impugned order directing to keep the property in the Dispute Register by keeping the interest of both the parties. There is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing such order. The petitioner has not raised any grounds warranting interference of this Court, as such, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. Smt Sridevi Jampani, learned counsel for unofficial respondent contended that the petitioner has no title as of now and she filed a suit for Specific Performance. Until and unless the suit is decreed and the sale deed is executed in her favour, the petitioner cannot get any title. Further, mere keeping the property in dispute register does not affect the rights of the petitioner and it would always better in the interest of both the parties. The Revenue Divisional Officer has rightly passed the impugned order, as such prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Revenue Divisional officer has no jurisdiction to pass such an order and if the said order subsists, it not only causes irreparable loss to the petitioner, but it amounts to 4 miscarriage of justice. As such, prayed to pass orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.197 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge for Specific Performance and also for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 20.07.2016 executed by her vendor in favour of respondent No.4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that his vendor, having executed the agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner, has sold the property in favour of unofficial respondent and in view of the same, the petitioner also sought cancellation of registered sale deed which has been executed in favour of unofficial respondent in the said suit. In the meantime, the unofficial respondent has approached the Revenue Divisional officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer, after calling for a report from the Tahsildar and noticing that suit is pending before the competent civil Court, has directed the Tahsildar to keep the property in dispute register. As rightly contended by learned counsel for unofficial respondent, as on today, the petitioner has no right or title with regard to subject property and until and unless the suit filed by the petitioner is decreed in her favour and the sale deed is executed, the petitioner cannot get any title over the property. Further keeping the property in dispute register in fact is 5 beneficial to the petitioner. In view of the same, the petitioner cannot assail the said proceedings. The Writ Petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, this order should not come in the way of the petitioner to redress his grievance before the appropriate authority subject to the outcome of the suit. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 17.02.2025 MP 6 224 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 245 of 2022 17.02.2025 MP