ORDER : 1. One S.K.Rajesh filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the action of respondent No.2 in blocking the Online Revenue Records by removing his digital signature in respect of the land in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.376/2B of Gangavaram Village fields, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District belonging to the petitioner without any prior notice and to declare the same as arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and consequently direct the respondent No 2 to restore the Online Revenue Records in respect of the land in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.376/2B of Gangavaram Village fields, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District belonging to the petitioner. 2. The land admeasuring an extent of Ac.8.06 cents in Sy.No.376/2 of Gangavaram Village originally belonged to one G.Pedda Nanjundappa, S/o.Buddannagari Rachappa. During his life time, the said G.Pedda Nanjundappa executed a Gift Deed, dated 25.11.1928 bearing registered document No.1416/1928 in favour of Sri Kodanramaswamivari Temple, represented by its Trustee Ugranam Narayanaswamy Chetty for an extent of Ac.1.90 cents. After the death of the said Padda Nanjundappa, his two sons G.Veerabhadrappa and G.Rajasekhar got divided their family properties under the Partition Deed dated 22.02.1995 bearing No.528/1995. In the said partition, the land in an extent of Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.376/2 was allotted to G.Veerabhadrappa within specific boundaries, which is fully described as ‘A’ schedule and the remaining Ac.3.16 cents was allotted to G.Rajasekhar, which is more fully described as 'B' schedule with specific boundaries. As per the description of the property in the partition deed, land admeasuring an extent of Ac.3.16 in Sy.No.376/2 i.e. ‘B' schedule of the Partition Deed, dated 22.02.1995, the northern boundary is shown as the land in an extent of Ac.1.90 cents gifted by their father in favour of Sri Kodandaramaswamulavari Temple. The legal heirs of G.Pedda Nanjundappa i.e., G. Veerabhadrappa and G.Rajasekhar are only the parties to the said registered partition deed, dated 22.02.1995 and hence they have conceded the existence of the Temple land on the Northern side of the land of G.Rajasekhar and the land in an extent of Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.376/2 is situate on the southern side of the land of G.Rajasekhar. 3. 3. While so, G.Veerabhadrappa along with his children have sold the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.00 out of Ac.3.00 situated in Sy.No.376/2 within specific boundaries by registered Sale Deed dated 06.03.1995 bearing No.553/1995 to the petitioner and delivered possession of the same, since then the said extent of land is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. The Tahsildar mutated the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, allotted sub-division No.376/2B, issued Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deeds in favour of the petitioner. Later, G. Veerabhadrappa had sold the remaining land in extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.376/2 on the same day under registered Sale Deed dated 06.03.1995 bearing document No.552/1995 to one D.Gopala Reddy with specific boundaries and delivered possession of the same to him on the same day. In turn, the said D.Gopala Reddy sold the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.376/2 in favour of father of the petitioner S.Krishna Murthy under Sale Deed, dated 27.09.1997 bearing document No.1947/1997, delivered possession of the same to him and since then he was in his possession and enjoyment during his lifetime. Further, having recognized the possession and enjoyment of father of the petitioner late S.Krishna Murty, over the said extent of land, the revenue authorities assigned sub-division No.376/2C, issued Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deeds in his favour. After the death of his father S.Krishnamurthy, the petitioner being sole legal representative, succeeded Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.376/2C under Will, dated 07.01.2014 bearing document No.4/BK3/2014, as such the petitioner became the owner and possessor of the land in an extent of Ac. 1.00 cents in Sy.No.376/2B and Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.376/2C of Gangavaram Village fields, Gangavarm Mandal, Chittoor District (hereinafter referred as the „subject property?). While so, the brother of vendor of the petitioner G.Rajasekhar and his wife Smt.Janaki, who have nothing to do with the subject land, which devolved upon the vendor of the petitioner G.Veerabhadrappa under Partition Deed, dated 22.02.1995, attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and his father S.Krishna Murthy. Under those circumstances, the petitioner and his father Late S.Krishna Murthy were constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.227 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Palamaner against G.Rajasekhar and four others, for declaration of their right and title over the same and for permanent injunction. Under those circumstances, the petitioner and his father Late S.Krishna Murthy were constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.227 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Palamaner against G.Rajasekhar and four others, for declaration of their right and title over the same and for permanent injunction. After fullfledged trial, the suit in O.S.No.227 of 1997 was decreed declaring the title of the petitioner and consequential injunction. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, G.Rajasekhar and his wife Smt.Janaki, who were defendants No.1 and 2 in the suit, filed an appeal suit in A.S.No.83 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Palmner, but the judgment and decree of the trial Court is neither suspended nor stayed. However, the said appeal suit pending adjudication. 4. Whileso, the petitioner was constrained to sell part of the subject land i.e., in an extent of Ac. 1.00 cents in Sy.No.376/2B of Gangavaram Village fields, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District, in favour of one D.Loganathan through a sale deed, dated 01.03.2021 and presented the same for registration before the Sub Registrar, Palmaner. Whereas, the Sub-Registrar, Palmaner having assigned the pending document P.No.88/2021 refused to register and release the same on the ground that the Online Revenue Records for the said extent of land are blocked by respondent No.2. Thereafter, when the petitioner approached respondent No.2, he informed about his knowledge regarding pendency of A.S.No.83 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Palmaner, and other suits, as such he blocked the Online Revenue Records by removing digital signature in respect of the subject land. Therefore, blocking of Online revenue records pertaining to the subject land is contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”) and no notice was served on the petitioner before keeping the subject property in the disputed properties list. The petitioner was prevented to sell the property, though title was declared in his favour, such act of respondent No.2 amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, and the procedure prescribed under “the Act”, requested to issue a direction as claimed in the writ petition. 5. The petitioner was prevented to sell the property, though title was declared in his favour, such act of respondent No.2 amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, and the procedure prescribed under “the Act”, requested to issue a direction as claimed in the writ petition. 5. Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit while denying the material allegations admitted about various transactions including partition of the property, sale of the property and the gift deed executed in favour of Sri Kodanramaswamivari Temple as contended by the petitioner, blocking of Online revenue records pertaining to the subject property. 6. Respondent No.2 specifically contended that the dispute relating to an extent of Ac.8.06 cents in Sy.No.376/2 of Gangavaram Village Mandal is pending since 2008 between the petitioner and Sri G.Rajasekhar, s/o Pedda Nanjundappa and others in several civil suits regarding right and title over the subject land. Originally the land in Sy.No. 376/2 admeasuring Ac.7-12 cents is classified as G.D/Dry Patta as per A-Register of Gangavaram Village and Mandal. The extent has been revised and modified to an extent of Ac.8-06 cents as “Area Errata” as per Collectors C.No.41/53, dated 02.02.1953. The land in Sy.No.376/2 extent Ac.7-12 cents has been sold by one Smt Mallamma w/o Chengalaiah through an registered sale deed bearing No. 466/1926, dated 16.06.1926 to one Sri G. Pedda Nanjundappa s/o G. Rachappa and accordingly, the name of the purchaser viz., Sri G. Pedda Nanjundappa was mutated in village accounts vide 10(1) Khata No.433 of Gangavaram village. 7. It is further contended that an extent of Ac.1-90 cents out of Ac.8-06 cents has been at the outset gifted in Sy.No.376/2 of Gangavaram Revenue village to the Deity, Sri Kodandaramaswamy @ Sree Seetha Ramanjunaya Swamy Temple at Palamaner Town and Mandal through registered gift deed No.1416/1928, dated 29.11.1928 by Sri G. Pedda Nanjundappa s/o G.Rachappa and kept the balance extent Ac.6-16 cents with him as per area errata extent. Sri Pedda Nanjundappa demised in or about in the year, 1987. Sri Pedda Nanjundappa demised in or about in the year, 1987. Further, it is submitted that Sri G. Veerabadrappa and Sri G. Rajasekhar who are the sons and legal heirs of Sri G. Pedda Nanjundappa have shared the subject land in Sy.No.376/2 at the rate of Ac.3-00 and Ac.3-16 cents (Total Ac.6-16 cents) respectively as per their partition deed bearing No.528/95, dated 04.03.1995 after demise of said Sri G. Pedda Nanjundappa excluding an extent of Ac.1.90 cents which has been gifted to the Deity, Sri Kodandaramaswamy Temple. After execution of registered family partition, one Sri G.Veerabadrappa with his legal heirs/minor children viz., Sri G.Suresh, Sri Ramesh, Sri G.V. Santosh Badri @ Ganesh, Smt. G.V. Rekha Badri and Smt. G.V. Asha Badri who are the sons and daughters have jointly sold away his share admeasuring an extent of Ac.2-00 cents in Sy.No.376/2 of Gangavaram village to Sri D. Gopal Reddy s/o Narasimha Reddy through a registered sale deed No.552/1995, dated 08.03.1995. Similarly, on the same date, the remaining extent of Ac.1-00 cents has also been sold away to one Sri S.K. Rajesh s/o S.Krishna Murthy through a registered sale deed No.553/1995. 8. It is further contended that the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Gangavaram has sub-divided the subject lands as detailed below as per Proc.No.8A/R/10/1404, dated 20.03.1995 on request of vendees during the year-1995. Sl. No. Old Sy.& S.D.No. Total extent in Ac.cents New Sy.No. & S.D.No. Extent divided in Ac.cents. Name of the Pattadar 1 376/2 8-06 376/2A 5-06 1. Sri G. Pedda Nanjundappa, 2.Sri Kodandaramaswamy Deity Darmakartha: Sri T. Chedambaram Chetty. (Including gifted land to Sri Kodandarama swamy diety to an extent of Ac.1-90 cents) 376/2B 1-00 Sri S.K.Rajesh s/o S.Krishna Murthy (Present writ petitioner) 3 376/2 C 2-00 Sri D.Gopal Reddy S/o D.Narasimha Reddy Total 8-06 8-06 9. It is further contended that the sub division proceedings have become final and binding on the vendees. No appeal/revision was filed against the proceedings dated 20.03.1995 with in time under the Provisions of A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. Accordingly, the name of the vendees have been mutated in 10 (1) Khata No.995 of Sri S.K. Rajesh and 996 assigned to Sri D. Gopal Reddy respectively of Gangavaram village. Subsequently, the said Sri D.Gopal Reddy in turn has sold away the extent of Ac.2-00 in Sy.No.376/2C to Sri Sripuram Krishna Murthy through an registered sale deed No.1947/1997, dated 27.09.1997. Accordingly, the name of the vendees have been mutated in 10 (1) Khata No.995 of Sri S.K. Rajesh and 996 assigned to Sri D. Gopal Reddy respectively of Gangavaram village. Subsequently, the said Sri D.Gopal Reddy in turn has sold away the extent of Ac.2-00 in Sy.No.376/2C to Sri Sripuram Krishna Murthy through an registered sale deed No.1947/1997, dated 27.09.1997. The names of vendees were mutated in the revenue records by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Gangavaram after due enquiry and in the guise of the registered sale deeds in their favour and Pattadar Passbooks and Title deeds have also been issued to an extent of Ac.1-00 cents in Sy.No.376/2B vide IB Khata No.675 to Sri S.K. Rajesh and an extent of Ac.2-00 cents in favour of Sri S.Krishnamurthy vide IB Khata No.81 respectively. Another landholder Sri G. Rajasekhar has not submitted any 6A-Claim u/s 4(1) of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 from the date of partition, dated 04.03.1995 till date. As such, the land in Sy.No. 376/2A extent Ac.5-06 cents is kept as Notional Khata in the Web Land adangal of Gangavaram village at present. Further, the said Sri G. Rajasekhar and his wife, Smt Janaki and other family members attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the lands in Sy.No.376/2B extent Ac.1-00 and Sy.No.376/2C Extent Ac.2-00 purchased by Sri S.K.Rajesh and his father, Sri S. Krishnamurthy. For that said reason, Sri S.K.Rajesh and his father, Sri S. Krishnamurthy have jointly filed a suit in O.S.No.227 of1997 on the file of Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge's Court, Palamaner for declaration of their right and title over the lands in Sy. No.376/2B extent Ac.1.00 and Sy.No.376/2C Extent Ac.2-00 for permanent injunction restraining the said Sri G. Rajasekhar and others. The said Suit in O.S.No.227 of 1997 was decreed as prayed for on 31.03.2011. It is contended that the land of Ac.1-90 cents gifted to the Deity, Sri Kodandaramaswamy @ Sree Seetha Ramanjunaya Swamy Temple at Palamaner is fallen to the share of Sri G. Rajasekhar with an extent of Ac.3.16 cents under the registered partition deed No.528/1995, dated 04.03.1995 and sub-divided as Sy.No. 376/2A to an extent of Ac.5-06 cents. It is contended that the land of Ac.1-90 cents gifted to the Deity, Sri Kodandaramaswamy @ Sree Seetha Ramanjunaya Swamy Temple at Palamaner is fallen to the share of Sri G. Rajasekhar with an extent of Ac.3.16 cents under the registered partition deed No.528/1995, dated 04.03.1995 and sub-divided as Sy.No. 376/2A to an extent of Ac.5-06 cents. Aggrieved by the said decree dated 31.03.20211 passed in O.S.No.227 of 1997 by the Junior Civil Judge, Palamaner, the said Sri G. Rajasekhar and others have preferred an appeal in A.S.No.83 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court Palamaner and the said Appeal is pending adjudication before the Court, Palamaner on the subject land as on today. 10. In addition to the above, O.S.No.283 of 2006, 289 of 2008 and 36 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Palamaner are also pending pertaining to the subject land. 11. It is further contended that G. Rajasekhar and other family members are not agreeable for sub-divisions and for mutation of names of vendees of the subject lands and filed these Appeal suit and other civil suits as stated supra in various civil courts. The trustee, Sri Vasudev is also sought to assume charge of Sri Seetha Ramanjaneyaswamy temple of Palamaner town in spite of litigations arising out of the said gift deeds and obliged to file suits seeking to set aside the alleged gift deed and other sale transactions as stated earlier. It is crystal clear that A.S.No. 83/2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court Palamaner and other three suits are pending adjudication in respect of subject lands before the Junior Civil Judge's court, Palamaner as on date in various civil courts as stated supra. These civil suits are clearly established that there is prolonged dispute over the subject lands between the writ petitioner and others. 12. It is further contended that G.Rajasekhar, plaintiff in civil suits submitted a representation dated 22.06.2020 to respondent No.2 through his counsel with a request not to enter the others name in the concerned village accounts in respect of subject land. 12. It is further contended that G.Rajasekhar, plaintiff in civil suits submitted a representation dated 22.06.2020 to respondent No.2 through his counsel with a request not to enter the others name in the concerned village accounts in respect of subject land. The petitioner has registered an application in Form VI-A through transaction ID No.TARMU 012006022563 dated 28.12.2020 for mutation of the land in his favour for the land in Sy.No.376/2C extent Ac.2.00 including other lands stands in the name of his father as per registered Will bearing No.4 of BK III/2014 dated 07.01.2014 executed while his life time by his father. Sri S. Krishna Murthy who expired on 10.08.2020. After due enquiry, the un-disputed land in Sy.No.423/5D extent Ac.0-09 and other 11 survey numbers of Gangavaram village have been mutated in favour of the present writ petitioner under pouthi transfer and excluded the land in Sy.No. 376/2C extent Ac.2-00 cents of Gangavaram in Form-VI claim manually since there are Four (4) Civil cases are pending in respect of subject lands in various Civil courts as affirmed supra. But on the technical aspect, the digital signature of respondent No.2 has been appended including the subject lands to IB Khata No.675 pertaining to the petitioner vide 7R/97/2020, dated 27.01.2021 and disputed subject lands could not be separated for exclusion of the digital signature of respondent No.2, Tahsildar, Gangavaram Mandal. 13. It is further contended that after approval of Form-VI -A claim registered by the writ petitioner under pouthi transfer, One Sri G. Rajasekhar s/o Pedda Nanjundappa who is the petitioner in various civil court suits pertinent to the subject lands has submitted a representation on 05.03.2021 with a plea that not to issue Pattadar passbooks and title deeds to the present writ petitioner, father of the writ petitioner and also in the name of Sri Kodandaramaswamy Temple and not to sub-divide the lands in Sy.No.376/2 Extent Ac.8-06 cents of Gangavaram village since the O.S.No.283/2006, O.S.No.36/2003, O.S.No.289/2008 and A.S.No. 83/2014 are pending adjudication in various civil Courts. Further, Sri G. Rajasekhar stated that he has submitted a representation to the Sub-Collector, Madanapalle in this regard which was received by respondent No.2 on 12.03.2021 vide Roc.B1/867/2021 dated 08.03.2021. 14. Further, Sri G. Rajasekhar stated that he has submitted a representation to the Sub-Collector, Madanapalle in this regard which was received by respondent No.2 on 12.03.2021 vide Roc.B1/867/2021 dated 08.03.2021. 14. On receipt of representation, dated 05.03.2021 from One Sri G. Rajasekhar, respondent No.2, The Tahsildar, Gangavaram Mandal, has conducted discreet enquiry and concluded that the writ petitioner and his associates are sincerely trying to sell away the subject lands to third parties for his personnel gain and privilege with profound thought and pre-meditation. As such, respondent No.2 has taken decision and kept the subject lands of the writ petitioner and his father in Dispute Register of Web Land adangal on 05.03.2021 to avert further ultimate litigations. Respondent No.2 has no alternative remedy and the only remedy to stop the sales of the subject lands by the writ petitioner and to kept these lands in Disputed Register of Web Land Adangal as the A.S. No. 83/2014, O.S. No.283/2006, O.S.No.36/2003 and O.S.No.289/2008 and are pending adjudication pertinent to the subject lands in various civil courts as stated supra, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 15. Respondent No.3 also filed counter reiterating the contentions urged by respondent No.2, therefore, it requires no further reiteration. 16. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the petition while drawing the attention of this court to Rule 9(1)(iv) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short “the Rules”) where the Recording Authority shall not pass any order for the change of registry or splitting of joint pattas, unless the recording authority is satisfied that the change of registry or splitting of joint patta is not in contravention of any of the provisions of: (1) The Andhra Pradesh and Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural) Holdings Act, 1973 (Act 1 of 1973); (2) The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Central Act 33 of 1976); (3) The Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (9 of 1977) 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that when respondent No.2 failed to follow the procedure contemplated under Rule 9 (1) of the Rules, keeping the property in the disputed properties list on account of pendency of suit deleting the digital signature is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules, requested to issue a direction as claimed in the writ petition. 18. During hearing, respondent No.2 filed affidavit along with documents i.e. plaint, written statements in O.S.Nos.36 of 2003, 283 of 2006 and 289 of 2008 in support of his contentions, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 19. Sri K.Ram Mohan, learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposed the petition on the ground that when original suits and appeal are pending before the competent Court pertaining to the suit property, mutation of name of the petitioner in the revenue records is impermissible while placing reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 16.08.2021 passed in “Velivela Sarojini v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Writ Petition No.8900 of 2019 dated 16.08.2021)” and another judgment in “Chinnam Pandurangam v. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, AIR 2008 AP 15 ”, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 20. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the point needs to be answered by this Court is as follows: 21. Whether the pendency of Civil litigation in O.S.No.283 of 2006, O.S.No.289 of 2008 and O.S.No.36 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Palamaner and A.S.No.83 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Palamaner is a valid ground to keep the property in disputed properties register blocking Online revenue account pertaining to the subject property? If not, blocking Online revenue account pertaining to subject land is in violation of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and violative of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971? If so, whether the impugned act of respondent No.2 is liable to be declared as illegal and arbitrary, consequently, issue a direction to respondent No.2 to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records? POINT: 22. The relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.3 herein and other parties to the original suits and appeal (referred supra), partition of the property etc., are not in quarrel. POINT: 22. The relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.3 herein and other parties to the original suits and appeal (referred supra), partition of the property etc., are not in quarrel. Similarly, submission of application by the petitioner Form VI-A through transaction ID No.TARMU 012006022563 dated 28.12.2020 is also not in dispute. 23. It is evident from the pleadings of both the parties, only reason to block Online Revenue account pertaining to the subject property is pendency of three suits and appeal (referred supra). 24. None of the provisions of the Act permits respondent No.2 to block Online Revenue records pertaining to the property of any person on account of pendency of suits or appeals. When an application is made in Form VI (A) through Meeseva, it is the duty of the authorities to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 5 (1) (3) of the Act read with Rule 18, 19 (1) and 5 (2) (a) to (e) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short “the Rules”) for mutation of the names of the parties. If any objections are received like objections submitted by respondent No.3 herein, both in person and through his counsel, respondent No.2 is required to pass appropriate order so as to enable the aggrieved party to prefer an appeal under Section 5 B of the Act, which is subject to Revision under Section 9 of the Act. IN the instant case, it appears that the petitioner submitted application through Online vide application No.TARMU 012006022563 dated 28.12.2020 for mutation of his name, respondent No.3 submitted objections personally and through his counsel. In those circumstances, respondent No.2 is expected to pass appropriate order considering the intimation of the petitioner and objections filed by respondent No.3 herein. In spite of passing any order, respondent No.2 blocked revenue record pertaining to the subject property as three suits and one appeal (referred supra) are pending before the Court. But none of the provisions of the Act or Rules permits the Tahsildar to block such Online Revenue Record due to pendency of suits. 25. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue placed on record the Andhra Pradesh Land Titling Act, 2020, which came into force in the year 2020. But this is not relevancy for deciding the present controversy. 26. When the land is in dispute, the account will be shown in „red colour? 25. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue placed on record the Andhra Pradesh Land Titling Act, 2020, which came into force in the year 2020. But this is not relevancy for deciding the present controversy. 26. When the land is in dispute, the account will be shown in „red colour? in the revenue records. Instead of giving ‘red colour’ to the Online account of the subject property, respondent No.2, obviously for different reasons, blocked the account, which is impermissible under law. 27. In view of Rule 9(1)(c)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, in respect of cases falling under Rule 9(1)(a)(i), the Mandal Revenue Officer shall hold a summary enquiry as to who has the right to succeed to the property of the deceased registered holder, according to the principles of the Law of Succession which govern the case and give notice to all persons known or believed to be interested to the effect that the registry will be made in the name of the person found to be entitled, unless a declaration is filed, within three months from the date of the notice, by any person objecting to the registry, stating that he has instituted a suit in a Civil Court to establish his superior title and an authenticated copy of the plaint in the suit is produced. If no declaration is filed, the registry should be made as stated in the notice, at the expiration of three months. If a declaration is filed, the result of the suit should be awaited before taking further action. 28. Therefore, the words “a notice to all persons known or believed to be interested to the effect that the registry will be made” assumes importance in the present case. According to the petitioner, no notice was issued to this petitioner, the respondent also did not dispute the contention of petitioner about failure to issue notice. Therefore, on the ground of violation of procedure prescribed under Rule 9(1)(c)(ii), the order challenged is liable to be set-aside, without further going into the merits of the case. Therefore, placing the property of this petitioner in disputed register without following the procedure contemplated under Rule 9(1)(c)(ii) is an illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside. 29. In the present case, the procedure prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules has not been followed by respondent No.2. Therefore, placing the property of this petitioner in disputed register without following the procedure contemplated under Rule 9(1)(c)(ii) is an illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside. 29. In the present case, the procedure prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules has not been followed by respondent No.2. Even in the absence of any rule, it is the duty of respondent No.2 to follow the principles of natural justice affording an opportunity to give explanation before blocking the revenue account, which is the minimum requirement while depriving the petitioner to claim right in the property, but no such opportunity was given to the petitioner. 30. The rule of principles of natural justice is imbedded in Rule 9 of the Rules. In the entire counter, respondent No.2 or respondent No.3 did not state the procedure followed by respondent No.2 before blocking the revenue account of the subject property and they are silent. During hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue did not bring to the notice of this Court about the compliance of the procedure for keeping the subject property in the disputed properties register and blocking revenue account pertaining to the subject land. In the absence of compliance, the action of respondent No.2 is a serious illegality, in violation of Rule 9 of the Rule, and the principles of natural justice. Blocking revenue account directly disabled him to deal with the property though no interim order was passed either in the Original Suit or in the appeal pending before the Court restraining the petitioner from dealing with the property. In the absence of any interim order, mere pendency of suit or appeal is not sufficient to deprive the petitioner to enjoy the right in the agricultural land, such act of respondent No.2 is illegal and arbitrary and violation of Rule 9 of the Rules and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the action of respondent No.2 in blocking revenue account pertaining to the subject property is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the procedure prescribed in Section 5 (3) of the Act read with Rule 5 (2) (a) to (e), Rule 19 (1) of the Rules. 31. Therefore, the action of respondent No.2 in blocking revenue account pertaining to the subject property is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the procedure prescribed in Section 5 (3) of the Act read with Rule 5 (2) (a) to (e), Rule 19 (1) of the Rules. 31. Consequently, respondent No.2 is directed to pass appropriate order strictly adhering to the procedure contemplated under Section 5 (3) of the Act read with Rule 5 (2) (a) to (e), Rule 19 (1) of the Rules so as to enable the aggrieved party to prefer an appeal. Accordingly, the point is answered. 32. In the result, the writ petition is allowed declaring the action of respondent No.2 in blocking the Online Revenue Records by removing his digital signature in respect of the land in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.376/2B of Gangavaram Village fields, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District belonging to the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the procedure contemplated under Section 5 (3) of the Act read with Rule 5 (2) (a) to (e), Rule 19 (1) of the Rules while directing respondent No.2 to pass appropriate order strictly adhering to the procedure contemplated under Section 5 (3) of the Act read with Rule 5 (2) (a) to (e), Rule 19 (1) of the Rules. No costs. 33. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.