Judgment : The petitioner claims that he purchased Ac.4.67 cents comprising Survey No.561/2, situated Reddypalle Village, in the court auction,in connection with E.P.No.347 of 1974 in O.S.No.89 of 1970 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nandalur, on 26.07.1975, for a sum of Rs.2,000/-. The sale came to be confirmed in his favour and thereupon, he approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pullampet, for issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed. His application was considered and pattadar passbook and title deed came to be issued on 21.05.2007 vide Patta No.1079. Rosaiah Naidu is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.347 of 1974 in O.S.No.89 of 1970. The unofficial respondents i.e., respondents 5 to 7 viz., Polineni Umamaheswara Rao, Polineni Chandrasekhar and Polineni Padmavathamma filed a suit for partition and got the matter settled in the Lok Adalat Bench at Rajampet. Pursuant to the settlement, the Lok Adalat Bench at Rajampet passed an award. Basing on the said Award, the respondents 5 to 7 approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pullampet, for grant of pattadar passbook and title deed. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Pullampet, acting on their representation, granted pattadar passbook and title deeds in their favour under proceedings, dated 27.09.2008. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, having taken note of the orders passed in E.P.No.347 of 1974 in O.S.No.89 of 1970 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nandalur, and the compromise decree granted in O.S.No.82 of 2007, dated 14.03.2008, directed the parties to approach the civil Court for redressal, by order, dated 30.06.2009. Relevant portion of the order, reads as hereunder: “1) At the first instance PPB/TDs has been issued to Sri G.Mallikarjuna Rao for Sy.No.561/2 extent 4.67 cents of Reddipalli Village on the strength of the Judgment in E.P.No.347/74 OS No.89/70, dated 17.01.1976, vide Khata No.1079. 2) Later the respondents by filing Judgment, in O.S.No.82/2007 dated 14.03.2008 of Lok Adalat Bench at Rajampet and their family portion deeds, obtained PPBs/TDs for the shares as follows: 1) Sri Sy.No. Extent Polineni Uma 561/2 0.75 Maheswara Rao 2) Sri Polineni Chandra 561/2 3.00 Sekhar 3) Smt.Polineni 561/2 0.75 Padmavathamma 3) PPB/TDs were issued to the respondents by the authorities concerned in spite of the fact that earlier PPB/TDs issued to Sri G.Mallikarjuna Rao for Sy.No.561/2 extent 4.67 cents is existence and not cancelled, which leads to the present dispute. Taking the above aspects into consideration the following order is made:- 1) As the case is Civil in nature, in view of the E.P.No.347/74 in O.S.No.89/70 of District Munsif Court, Nandalur and Lok Adalat Bench at Rajampet, the applicant and respondents are directed to approach appropriate forum for redressel. 2) The PPB/TDs issued to the land in question to both the applicant and respondents are kept in abeyance, till the issue is decided by the competent Civil Court. 3) The Tahsildar is further instructed to inform the lending agencies about keeping in abeyance the above PPB/TDs. Tahsildar, Pullampet is requested to take action accordingly and report compliance.” Assailing the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, the petitioner filed revision before the Joint Collector, Kadapa, under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, (for short, ‘the Act’). The revisional authority while confirming the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, made certain observations touching the title of the petitioner herein. Hence, this Writ Petition assailing the order passed by the revisional Authority on 11.11.2009. Relevant portion of the order passed by the revisional Authority reads as hereunder: “11. In the instant case Pattadar Pass Book/Title Deeds were given to revision petitioner and Pattadar Pass Books / Title Deeds were again issued for the same land to Respondents without verification of ROR record i.e. 1 and 1-B Registers. Further the land was purchased by the petitioner in the year 1976 in Court auction. According to Article 65 of Limitation Act, a person who purchased property either in court auction or by private transaction has to take possession through legal process within 12 years from the date of purchase. The revision petitioner herein argued that he got possession from court, but failed to produce the recorded evidence. Further he himself admitted before this authority that he did not cultivate and he is not in possession and the villagers told him that the land under dispute is under the possession of respondents. According to Rule 26(6) of A.P. Rights in Land & Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, “A title deed or pass book shall be given only to those persons who are in actual possession of the land”. According to Rule 26(6) of A.P. Rights in Land & Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, “A title deed or pass book shall be given only to those persons who are in actual possession of the land”. The Revision Petitioner himself admitted before this court that he is not in possession of the said land and failed to produce the documentary evidences in support that the land were handed over to him by the Hon’ble Court. The Respondents herein have filed extracts of adangals in support of their claim and the Revision petitioner himself admitted before this Court that he was told by the Villagers that the lands are in possession of the Respondents. Therefore in this case the Revision petitioner is having title through Civil Court auction but no enjoyment and possession and the Respondents 3 to 5 are having enjoyment and possession but not having proper title. Therefore, the dispute is civil in nature and it can be settled only in Civil Court. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet.” 2. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 20.01.2010. An interim order came to be passed on the even date vide WPMP No.692 of 2010. 3. The respondents 1 to 4 in the W.P. filed WVMP No.2207 of 2010 and respondents 5 to 7 in the W.P. filed WVMP No.3418 of 2010 with a prayer to vacate the interim order, dated 20.01.2010, passed in WPMP No.692 of 2010. When the vacate stay petitions came up for consideration, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 7. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the revisional Authority while confirming the order passed by the appellate Authority, went beyond his jurisdiction in making certain observations adverse to the title of the petitioner in respect of the land in dispute. The observations made by the revisional Authority are not warranted in the given facts and circumstances and therefore, they are to be eschewed reserving liberty to the parties to agitate their claims in civil Court as provided under Section 8(2) of the Act. The observations made by the revisional Authority are not warranted in the given facts and circumstances and therefore, they are to be eschewed reserving liberty to the parties to agitate their claims in civil Court as provided under Section 8(2) of the Act. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in P.Sambasiva Rao v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad & Ors. ( 2009 (4) ALT 654 ). Much emphasis has been laid on paras.7 and 8 of the said judgment, which read as hereunder: “The petitioner, however, has a genuine grievance as regards certain observations made by respondents 2 and 3 (sic.1) in the orders passed by them in the appeal and revision, respectively. The scope of appeal or revision against an order passed under Section 5-A of the Act, is limited. The authorities have only to verify whether the prescribed procedure has been followed and whether there exists any legal or factual infirmity in the proceedings. It is impermissible to pronounce upon the title of the parties, in such proceedings. Disputes, touching upon title, can be decided only by the civil Courts. Section 8(2) of the Act, in a way, provides that any orders passed or proceedings issued under the Act, would be subject to adjudication in a suit that may be filed by the aggrieved parties. There is nothing in that provision to indicate that the proceedings initiated under Section 5-A are kept outside its scope. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of, without interfering with the orders under challenge, but directing that the observations made therein, in relation to the title of the parties, are outside the scope of such proceedings. It is left open to the petitioner to work out his remedies, in accordance with law.” 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 7 submits that the petitioner though claim to have purchased the property in the court auction has not filed any application seeking for delivery of the property, in which case, it is impermissible for the petitioner to contend that he is in possession of the property, which has been purchased by him in court auction. It is submitted by him that pattadar passbook and title deeds are to be issued to the persons in possession of the property and as the respondents 5 to 7 are in possession of the property, the Revenue Divisional Officer ought not to have interfered with the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, who having considered the possession of the respondents 5 to 7 in respect of the land in dispute, rightly issued pattadar pass book and title deeds in their favour. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pattam Khader Khan v. Pattam Sardar Khan (1996) 5 SCC 48 ). 7. As seen from the material placed on record, the respondents 5 to 7 are the children of Rosaiah Naidu. The said Rosaiah Naidu was the judgment debtor in E.P.No.347 of 1974 in O.S.No.89 of 1970 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nandalur. The decree holder in O.S.No.89 of 1970 filed E.P.No.347 of 1974 and got the properties of Rosaiah Naidu to sale. In the court auction, the petitioner herein purchased the property and obtained sale certificate. Basing on the sale certificate, he approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pullampet, for issuance of pattadar passbook and title deeds. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Pullampet, considered the application and granted pattadar passbook and title deeds in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondents 5 to 7 filed a suit for partition in respect of the properties of their father Rosaiah Naidu. They got the suit referred to the Lok Adalat Bench and the Bench of the Lok Adalat passed an award pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties. The petitioner, who is the auction purchaser, is not a party to the said proceedings. Basing on the award passed by the Lok Adalat, the respondents 4 to 7 approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pullampet, for granting of pattadar passbook and title deeds. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Pullampet, without recalling the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner herein, proceeded to issue fresh pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the respondents 5 to 7. Of course, it is the contention of the respondents 5 to 7 that the petitioner has not levied any proceedings in the Execution Petition for taking delivery of properties. Of course, it is the contention of the respondents 5 to 7 that the petitioner has not levied any proceedings in the Execution Petition for taking delivery of properties. At this stage, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner indeed filed an application for delivery and the said application has been ordered. Anyhow, these are the facts which the competent Civil Court has to examine. In view of the directions given by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, the parties have to establish their rights before the civil Court. The observation made by the Joint Collector, Kadapa, with regard to the limitation and other aspects are wholly unwarranted when the parties are directed to establish their rights in the civil Court. Therefore, the observations made by the Joint Collector, Kadapa, with regard to the limitation aspect of filing the application seeking delivery of the property are hereby set aside. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of, without interfering with the orders under challenge, but directing that the observations made therein, in relation to the title of the parties, are outside the scope of such proceedings. It is left open to the petitioner to work out his remedies, in accordance with law. No costs.