JUDGMENT : The Court made the following order: The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s father during his life time purchased an extent of Ac.1.00 cents of land in R.S.No.576/4 of Vellaturu Village, G.Konduru Mandal, NTR District under Registered Sale Deed dated 27.07.1981 vide Doc.No.1370/1981 from the vendor-Sri Valluri Venkata Subbamma and accordingly, the Government issued passbook in favour of his father. After purchasing the said land, his father raised a mango garden in the said extent of land and cultivated the same. Due to Covid-19, his father died on 02.06.2021 and during his life time, he executed a will bequeathing the said Mango garden to the petitioner and the same was devolved upon him after the death of his father. It is further case of the petitioner that during his father life time, in the Adangals, the revenue authorities erroneously mentioned that out of Ac.1.00 cents of Mango garden, an extent of Ac.0.75 cents belongs to the brother of the petitioner’s father who is respondent No.7 herein, even though he has no right or title over the said land, erroneously it was shown that out of Ac.1.00 cents of land purchased by the petitioner’s father, an extent of A.0.25 cents only belongs to the petitioner’s father and the same error was continued in the online also. In view of the same, the petitioner’s father made a representation to the revenue authorities with a request to rectify the error crept in the revenue records, but there is no response from the respondent authorities. Further, the petitioner’s father made an application to the 6th respondent-Tahsildar, to incorporate his name by deleting the name of unofficial respondent No.7 with regard to the land to an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in R.s.No.576/4, but the same was dismissed on 11.04.2018 vide Rc.A/81/2016 by the Tahsidar, G.Konduru Mandal. As against the said order, the petitioner’s father preferred an appeal under the provisions of A.P Rights in Land and Pattadhaar passbook Act, 1971 before the 5th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Vijayawada. The said authority without proper verification of the irrefutable documentary evidence of title in favour of the petitioner’s father, mechanically upheld the erroneous order passed by the Tahsildar, advising the petitioner’s father to get the matter settled amicably. Thereafter, the petitioner’s father preferred a revision before the 4th respondent-Joint Collector, Machilipatnam and the said authority dismissed the revision without assigning any reasons. Thereafter, the petitioner’s father preferred a revision before the 4th respondent-Joint Collector, Machilipatnam and the said authority dismissed the revision without assigning any reasons. Pending revision, his father died on 02.06.2021. Subsequent to the death of his father, the petitioner obtained copies of the order. Questioning the order passed in revision, the present writ petition is filed and prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 2. Heard Ms.Amulya, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that the petitioner’s father purchased the subject property in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in R.S.No.576/4 under the registered sale deed and on the influence of the unofficial respondents, the official respondents, shown an extent of Ac.0.75 cents in favour of the unofficial respondent and an extent of Ac.0.25 cents only in favour of the petitioner’s father in the revenue records. In these circumstances, the petitioner’s father made an application to the Tahsildar to rectify the same but the same was dismissed, which was confirmed by the appellate authority and revisional authority directing the petitioner to approach competent civil court. The said orders are passed even without looking into the documents filed by the petitioner’s father. The authorities have failed to exercise their jurisdiction and powers enshrined under the provisions of A.P Rights in Land and Pattadhaar Passbook Act, 1971. As against the orders of the Collector, the petitioner’s father also preferred further revision before the 2nd respondent-Chief Commission of Land Administration on 19.02.2020, wherein the said authority dismissed the revision petition at the admission stage itself (holding that the authority has no jurisdiction). The appellate authority and revisional authority in a mechanical fashion confirmed the orders of the Tahsildar and the said authorities have not given valid reasons while dismissing the petitioner’s father application. If such orders are allowed to subsist, the right of the petitioner will be affected. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that the authorities have rightly passed orders on the petitioner’s application, as there is a title dispute between the petitioner’s father and his brother who is respondent No.7 herein. If such orders are allowed to subsist, the right of the petitioner will be affected. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that the authorities have rightly passed orders on the petitioner’s application, as there is a title dispute between the petitioner’s father and his brother who is respondent No.7 herein. Until and then they ventilate their dispute before the competent civil Court, the revenue authorities cannot entertain the petitioner’s father application and thereby incorporate his name in the revenue records with regard to the land to an extent of Ac.1.00 cents. There is no irregularity or impropriety in passing orders by the authorities on the petitioner’s father application. As the petitioner has not raised any valid or legal grounds warranting the interference of this Court, the writ petition deserves dismissal and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record. 6. The petitioner is claiming title over the subject property by way of a will dated 12.03.2021. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s father purchased the land to an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in R.S.No.576/4 of Vellaturu Village, G.Konduru Mandal, NTR District under Registered Sale Deed dated 27.07.1981. It is also the case of the petitioner that, on the influence of the unofficial respondents, the respondent authorities in the revenue records have shown an extent of Ac.0.25 cents only in favour of the petitioner’s father out of the land to an extent of Ac.1.00 cents. In those circumstances, the petitioner’s father made an application to the Tahsildar requesting to incorporate his name with regard to land to an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in R.S.No.576/4, by duly taking into consideration the registered sale deed dated 27.07.1981. The said application was rejected by the Tahsildar, as the petitioner’s father has no documentary evidence except pattadar pass book, whereas the 7th respondent is in adverse possession of the land to an extent of Ac.0.75 cents. As against the said order, the petitioner’s father preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO). The said authority after issuing notices to both the parties, heard and noticed that the appellant and respondents therein are brothers and their father, had ancestral property to an extent of Ac.2.00 cents, in R.S.No.576/3. As against the said order, the petitioner’s father preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO). The said authority after issuing notices to both the parties, heard and noticed that the appellant and respondents therein are brothers and their father, had ancestral property to an extent of Ac.2.00 cents, in R.S.No.576/3. After death of their father, they have jointly purchased an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in R.S.No.576/4 and registered in favour of the appellant i.e., the petitioner’s father and they divided the total extent of Ac.3.00 cents into four equal shares and obtained pattadar passbooks and were in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares since long back. In view of the above circumstances, the appeal filed by the petitioner’s father was not considered, and the appeal was closed directing the Tahsildar, G.Konduru to maintain stauts quo on physical possession of land till the issue is resolved by a mutual consent of the family members. Challenging the same, the petitioner’s father preferred a revision before the Joint Collector. After hearing the parties, the authority noticed that the issuance of the pattadar passbooks to all the four brothers were at the same point of time and the petitioner accepted the pattadar passbook issued to him for Ac.0.25 cents in R.S.No.576/4 and they continued to be in possession of the same as per the mutated extent since long which shows that a kind of arrangement had prevailed among the four brothers while issuing pattadar pass books. Therefore, the contention of the 1st respondent therein i.e., the 7th respondent herein that pattadar pass books were issued for equal share on an oral partition in which the petitioner is also a party seems to be reliable. The validity of oral partition vis-a-vis a registered conveyance deed in view of the continue adverse possession of the respondents has to be decided by the competent civil Court but not by the said authority and accordingly dismissed the revision conforming the orders of the appellate authority. The petitioner further filed an appeal before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Vijayawada wherein the authority dismissed the appeal at the admission stage itself, on the ground that the said authority has no jurisdiction. The petitioner further filed an appeal before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Vijayawada wherein the authority dismissed the appeal at the admission stage itself, on the ground that the said authority has no jurisdiction. The pleadings and submissions would indicate that, there is some dispute between the petitioner’s farther and his brothers with regard to the joint family property and further it shows that the petitioner’s father and their brothers have partitioned the properties and accordingly their names were incorporated for their respective shares in the revenue records and issued pattadar pass books. Now, at this length of time, the petitioner asking to mutate his name by deleting the unofficial respondents’ name from the revenue records was not considered by the authorities referred supra on the ground that the subject issue has to be decided by the competent civil Court. Whether any settlement took place between the petitioner’s father and unofficial respondents would be a civil dispute wherein neither the revenue authorities nor this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India can adjudicate. Until the competent Court resolve the issue, the revenue authorities cannot entertain the request of the petitioner to mutate his name in the revenue records. There is no illegality or procedural irregularity in passing orders by the authorities referred supra and the writ petition deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court, if so advised and subject to outcome of the same, the petitioner can approach revenue authorities for consequential action. No costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.