ORDER The petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.1.23 cents of land, comprising different subdivisions of Survey No.20 of Koppaka Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District through a sale deed, dated 28.03.2007, from Smt. Kandregula Kanayamma, respondent No.7 herein, and her children. It is stated that Ac.0.60 cents of that land was purchased by Kanayamma through sale deeds of the years 1968 and 1972 with her stridhana property, and the balance of Ac.0.63 cents, which was purchased by her husband, Sri K.Pothuraju, has devolved upon her and her children on the death of Pothuraju. The petitioner was issued pattadar pass book and title deed and his name was also entered in the revenue records. Sri Sakala Venkata Ramana, respondent No.6 herein, raised a plea that the land in question was attached by the Government for recovery of arrears, the same was brought to sale on 10.03.2000, that he emerged as the highest bidder therein, and that the same was confirmed in his favour. On noticing this, the petitioner filed O.S.No.16 of 2011 in the Court of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam for declaration of his title over the land and for consequential reliefs. 2. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam, respondent No.2 herein, came to know about the issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land attached by the Revenue Department and accordingly, instructed the Tahsildar, Anakapalli, respondent No.5 herein, to apprise the appellate authority under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). Thus, an appeal came to be filed/taken up by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, respondent No.4 herein. Notice was issued to the petitioner and after considering the matter in detail, respondent No.4 passed an order on 12.11.2009, directing cancellation of the entries recorded in favour of the petitioner and the pattadar pass book and the title deed issued in his favour in respect of the land referred to above. R.P.No.9 of 2009 filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act before the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, respondent No.3 herein, was dismissed on 21.04.2012. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Sri G.Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the very institution of appeal before respondent No.4 was untenable, since no aggrieved party, much less, respondent No.6, has filed any Memorandum of Appeal. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Sri G.Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the very institution of appeal before respondent No.4 was untenable, since no aggrieved party, much less, respondent No.6, has filed any Memorandum of Appeal. He further submits that the so-called sale made in favour of respondent No.6 is void ab initio, since the balance of consideration was not paid in the year 2000 within the stipulated time and that it was only in the year 2009, that the sale was affected in favour of respondent No.6. He contends that once a suit is pending in respect of the land for declaration of title, respondent Nos.3 and 4 ought to have desisted from disturbing the present state of affairs in the revenue records. 4. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, submits that the sale in favour of the petitioner took place at a time when the property was under attachment and thereby, is untenable. He further submits that noticing the patent illegality that has crept into the records, respondent No.2 directed presentation of the appeal and even, the petitioner did not challenge the jurisdiction of respondent No.4 to entertain the matter. 5. The petitioner has described the manner in which his vendors have acquired title over the property. It is a matter of record that he was issued pattadar pass book and entries in the revenue records were also made in his favour. The appeal against the proceedings issued by respondent No.5 in favour of the petitioner, no doubt, was not filed by respondent No.6 or any other private individual. In the ordinary course, one does not expect the District Collector to take any steps in matters of this nature. Since his powers under the Act are delegated to the Joint Collector, the matter virtually ends at that level. However, there exist circumstances that warrant interference by the District Collector. 6. It is not in dispute that the land in question was attached under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of certain arrears due from one K.Pothuraju, the husband of respondent No.7 herein, one of the vendors and father of other vendors. It is fairly well-settled that there cannot be a valid transfer of property, which is under attachment. It is fairly well-settled that there cannot be a valid transfer of property, which is under attachment. The question as to whether the sale of the property in the auction was in any way vitiated, virtually becomes secondary. Since the attachment was made by the Revenue Department itself, respondent No.2 is certainly justified in ensuring that any steps vis-à-vis the attached land in contravention of law are rectified. 7. The petitioner may have purchased the property, not being aware of the attachment. However, once it has emerged that there existed attachment and proceedings have also taken place, he has to take recourse to law to establish his rights and the filing of the suit by the petitioner was a step in that direction. When there are so many complications surrounding the land, be it as regards attachment or the consequential sale, the issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the petitioner cannot be sustained. The question as to whether respondent No.6 held any land exclusively by herself, can certainly be examined in the pending suit. So is the case with the question as to the legality or otherwise of the sale in favour of respondent No.6. In case the petitioner is successful in the suit, the entries can certainly be made in his favour. 8. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, upholding the order under challenge, but directing that issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of the land in question shall await the outcome of O.S.No16 of 2011 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of.