ORDER :- The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus by declaring the impugned proceedings vide Case No.D5/4302/2004, dated 7.2.2006 of the 1st respondent and the proceedings No.A21 1161/2000, dated 27.1.2004 of the 2nd respondent and also the Memo No.B/498/2005, dated 9.2.2005 of the 3rd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to continue the names of the petitioner and coparceners in the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.50 to an extent of Acs.3.08 guntas situated at Badangipet Village, Saroomagar MandaI, Ranga Reddy District. 2. Respondents 4 to 7 herein who are the legal heirs of Harila and their mother Smt. Sivaraja Bai filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 for correction of the records in Sy.No.50 admeasuring Ac.03.08 guntas situated at Badangipet Village in the pahanies for the years 1986-87 to 1991-92 and 1996-97 alleging that for the said years the names of the writ petitioner and others were entered in the pahanies. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division by order dated 27.1.2004 in Case No.A2/1161/2000 ordered the appeal to record the name of Sri Madanlal father of the petitioner as pattadar in the pahanies for the years 1996-87 to 1991-92 in respect of Sy.No.50(3-08) of Badangipet Village while deleting the name of the writ petitioner herein and others, so also in the pahanies for the years 1996-97 and also ordered the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the writ petitioner and his family members in respect of Sy.No.50 of Badangipet Village to be cancelled. 3. It is stated that aggrieved by the said order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 27.1.2004, the petitioner and others filed revision before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the Joint Collector by order dated 7.2.2006 in Case No.D5/4302/2004 after hearing both parties suspended the order dated 27.1.2004 passed by the R.D.O. in File No.A2/l161/2000 on 27.8.2005. It is stated that during the pendency of the appeal and during the operation of stay orders, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroomagar vide Memo dated 9.3.2005 pursuant to the order of the R.D.O., though it was under operation as on 9.3.2005, directed to delete the names of the writ' petitioner and of hers from the records and cancelled the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner and others and entered the nan1es of the respondents 4 to 7 in the revenue records. It is stated that ultimately the revisional authority disposed of the Revision Case No.D5/4302/2004, dated 7.2.2006 stating that it is not proper for the revisional authority to enquire and decide the disputed questions which can be decided by the Civil Court as the dispute falls within the scope of Section 8(2) of the Act and accordingly the parties were referred to civil Court to get their respective claims adjudicated and accordingly the parties were given liberty to approach the revenue authority for appropriate relief under the Act. 4. Sri B. Sai Ram Gaud, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the parties were given liberty to approach the civil Court to adjudicate the dispute establishing their right, title and interest, the status quo obtained on the ground of stay granted by the Joint Collector shall be directed to be maintained with regard to the entries in the revenue records as the petitioner already approached the civil Court by filing a civil suit in O.S. No.918 of 2006 on the file of the District Judge, Ranga Reddy for declaration of title and perpetual injunction and also filed I.A. No.4439 of 2006 for grant of temporary injunction. 5. Sri M Narender Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 7 submits that it is always open for the writ petitioner to establish his right, title and possession in the pending suit and also obtain appropriate orders in the pending interlocutory application and further submits that there cannot be any objection for maintenance of status quo with regard to 'the entries in the revenue records obtaining as on today and also undertakes that his client shall maintain status quo in all respects without changing the nature of the land. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession of the land. 7. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession of the land. 7. I am not inclined to express any opinion as to who is in possession of the land. But, whoever may be in possession of the said land, both parties are directed to maintain status quo and shall not change the nature of the land and shall not alienate the same till the disposal of the said suit O.S. No.918 of 2006 on the file of the District Judge, Ranga Reddy. If any application filed by the respective parties in the said suit which is pending, it is open for the Civil Court to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. As the claim of title in respect of the said property is pending since a long time, the learned District Judge, Ranga Reddy may dispose of the said suit as expeditiously as possible. 8. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.