JUDGMENT : The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner’s father purchased the property to an extent of Ac.21.35 in Sy.No.58 in Budidapadu Village, Chapadu Mandal, Kadapa District in the year 1979 from the 6th respondent and his mother under unregistered Agreement of Sale and after receiving the entire sale consideration the possession was also delivered to the petitioner’s father and ever since he was in possession of the property till his death. After the death of the petitioner’s farther, the petitioner and his brother succeeded the subject land and both are in continuous possession of the same. When the 6th respondent tried to interfere with the possession, the petitioner got filed a suit vide O.S.No.124/2009 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Mydukur for permanent injunction and wherein the same was decreed on 16.03.2016 as the 6th respondent remained exparte. Thereafter, the GPA holder of the 6th respondent herein filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC but no orders as on today obtained. It is further case that the 6th respondent also filed a suit vide O.S.No.249/2008 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Mydukur for permanent injunction and the said suit was dismissed for default on 08.12.2010 and the 6th respondent either filed application of restoration of suit or any appeal, the said order has become final. During family partition between the petitioner and his brother the subject land fell to the share of the petitioner and wherein he approached the Revenue Divisional Officer-4th respondent herein for mutation of his name in the revenue records and cancellation of pattadar passbooks and title deeds standing in the name of the 6th respondent. The 4th respondent after calling for report from the Tahsildar-5th respondent and considering all the relevant records including decree of civil court dated 04.03.2019 directed the 5th respondent to cancel the pattadar passbooks and title deeds and mutate the petitioner’s name in all the revenue records. Accordingly, the Tahsildar-5th respondent mutated the petitioner’s name in all the revenue records and also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in his favor. As against the same, the 6th respondent preferred a revision before the 3rd respondent but did not obtain any stay orders on the 4th respondent’s order. Accordingly, the Tahsildar-5th respondent mutated the petitioner’s name in all the revenue records and also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in his favor. As against the same, the 6th respondent preferred a revision before the 3rd respondent but did not obtain any stay orders on the 4th respondent’s order. It is further case of the petitioner that on 23.08.2017 the petitioner gifted the subject property to his wife and his daughters under registered gift deeds and wherein the 5th respondent also again mutated the petitioner’s wife and children’s name in all revenue records and also issued pattadar passbooks and title deed to them. In the meantime, the 3rd respondent took up the revision for hearing and detailed counters have been filed along with written arguments and the revisional authority has relegated the parties to approach Civil Court as there is a serious dispute of title and possession and by setting aside the issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed in favor of the petitioner. Impugning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri G.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sai Sanjay, learned counsel representing Sri S.Dilip Jaya Ram, learned counsel for the 6th respondent and Ms.Prasanthi Gude, learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Learned for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that when the revisional authority comes to a conclusion that there is a serious dispute with regard to title and possession of a property and while relegating the parties to go to Civil Court cannot stay issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed in favor of the petitioner. The revisional authority vide order dated 20.03.2022 has granted stay on issuance of pattadar passbook contrary to the settled principles of law. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Smt.P.Ghousia Begum and others v. Basireddy Rukminamma and others, 2018 (5) ALT 148 (D.B.). He further submitted that pursuant to the filing of the writ petition the original owner who is residing in United States of America came to India and executed a registered relinquishment deed on 06.10.2022 and GPA issued in favor of 6th respondent is no more in force. By virtue of the registered relinquishment deed the 6th respondent’s GP holder cannot have any say. By virtue of the registered relinquishment deed the 6th respondent’s GP holder cannot have any say. Further, the observation made by the revisional authority in granting stay of the pattadar passbook issued in favor of the petitioner has to be adjudicated by this Court by duly taking into consideration the judgment of division bench and by upholding the other part of the orders of the revisional authority relegating the parties to approach Civil Court and accordingly prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, Sri Sai Sanjay, learned counsel representing Sri S.Dilip Jaya Ram, learned counsel for the 6th respondent submitted that the 6th respondent is no more GP holder of the original owner and he has no say in the subject issue. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the Joint Collector who is the revisional authority has rightly passed the order impugned in the present writ petition and no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner if such observation is made in the orders passed by the revisional authority neither there is illegality, irregularity or impropriety while passing the orders impugned, the petitioner has not raised any valid legal grounds warranting the interference of this Hon’ble Court and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused the record. 7. The petitioner initially claimed right and title over the subject property by way of unregistered sale deed said to have been obtained by the petitioner’s father in the 1979. When the 6th respondent tried to interfere with the possession, the petitioner as well as the original vendor have filed suits for a perpetual injunction against each other wherein the petitioner’s suit got decreed and vendor of the petitioner’s suit has been dismissed. The petitioner made an application before revenue authorities for mutation of his name in the revenue records and for issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed. The same was considered and accordingly the petitioner’s name was mutated. It is contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the year 2022 the original vendor of the petitioner came from United States of America and executed a registered relinquishment deed in favor of the petitioner and by virtue of the same he executed gift deed in favor of his wife and daughters. It is contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the year 2022 the original vendor of the petitioner came from United States of America and executed a registered relinquishment deed in favor of the petitioner and by virtue of the same he executed gift deed in favor of his wife and daughters. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that basing on the said gift deed the petitioner’s wife and daughters names have been mutated in the revenue records and also issued pattadar passbook and title deed in their favor. The 6th respondent herein being the GPA holder earlier filed a revision before the Joint Collector questioning the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 04.03.2017 mutating the petitioner’s name in the revenue records and granting pattadar passbook in his favor. The Joint Collector adjudicated the revision and accordingly relegated the parties to the competent Civil Court as there is a serious title dispute vide proceedings dated 20.03.2022. While relegating the parties to the Civil Court incidentally the Joint Collector also stayed the issuance of the pattadar passbook and title deed issued in favor of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Smt.P.Ghousia Begum and others v. Basireddy Rukminamma and others and the relevant para reads as follows: 4. The revisional authority being the Collector, after hearing all the parties interested held that the parties before him have raised the question of title and he, therefore, observed and recorded that he is not competent to decide the title. After observing so, he decided to cancel the passbooks. Being aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioners approached the learned Single Judge questioning the order of the Collector. The learned Trial Judge, upheld the decision and observations of the Collector that the matter relates to establishing of title and, therefore, it should be decided by a civil court. But his Lordship found that the order in question namely cancellation of the pattadar passbook is unjustified. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge is patently wrong as it should not have set aside that portion of the reasoned order of the Collector canceling pattadar passbook. But his Lordship found that the order in question namely cancellation of the pattadar passbook is unjustified. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge is patently wrong as it should not have set aside that portion of the reasoned order of the Collector canceling pattadar passbook. He argues that when the Collector himself found that there is no basis for issuance of the pattadar passbook, the pattadar passbook should not have been allowed to be operated as there is no record in that connection. 6. After hearing him, we are of the view that the learned Trial Judge has taken correct course of action for, in this matter, one has to decide the title first and after the decision on title is rendered, then recording of such right has to be made under the Act. In our considered view, recording the rights under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 is not the conclusive proof of title and ownership but it merely records rights of the persons. But once recording is done followed by the issuance of pattadar passbook, the presumption in favour of holder of the passbook is that he is having right in the land in question. But in this case, the right and title of the parties concerned are seriously disputed and thus the dispute has to be resolved by the civil court, as rightly observed by the Collector concerned as well as upheld by the learned Trial Judge. 7. According to us, when the pattadar passbook has been issued, the same cannot be cancelled automatically unless civil court found that there is no justification for issuance of the same. The presumption of correctness in issuance of pattadar pass book in favour of the person is always in the act and action of Government. But recording is not conclusive as it may be corrected and rectified by the civil court. Unless a competent civil court decides the actual title of the property in favour of any person, consequential measure for issuance or cancellation of pattadar passbook does not arise. Therefore, we uphold the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, as we do not find any illegality in the judgment. 8. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. Therefore, we uphold the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, as we do not find any illegality in the judgment. 8. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. As a sequel to the dismissal of the writ appeal, all the interim applications shall stand dismissed. In the said judgment, Division Bench has taken into consideration that while relegating the parties by the revenue authorities they cannot cancel the pattadar passbook and title deed and the order of the learned Single Judge has been carried to Division Bench and wherein the Division Bench has uphold the said finding. The principle laid out in the said judgment is applicable to the facts of the case. In so far as relegating the parties to the Civil Court is concerned, this Court is not inclined to interfere with such finding. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: (i). By taking into consideration the Division Bench judgment and the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order with regard to stay of issuance of pattadar passbook vide proceedings dated 20.03.2022 is hereby set aside. (ii). In so far as direction given by the Joint Collector with regard to relegating the parties to the Civil Court is uphold. 8. Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of. 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.