ORDER: RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J. The case of the petitioners is that one Sri Makkam Ramanjaneyulu s/o Makkam Venkata Reddy was the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.9.61 cents in Sy.Nos.788, 784, 790, 795, 796, 797, 798, 786, 789, 802 & 807/1 of Potladurthi Village, and revenue records reflect his title and possession over the same. Later, the 1 st & 2 nd petitioners purchased the said land in equal halves by way of registered sale deeds bearing Nos.2062/2016 & 2063/2016 dated 09.09.2016, and they have been in continuous possession over the subject property. While so, the 6 th respondent taking advantage of the similarities in name, in order to make unlawful and unjust gain, filed O.S.No.33 of 2017 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa, against the petitioners herein including Makam Ramanjaneyulu s/o Makam Venkata Reddy for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The petitioners filed a written statement contesting the suit and no injunction was granted in the said suit. Meanwhile, the 6 th respondent herein lodged a police complaint on 07.08.2017 before Yerraguntla Police Station against the petitioners and some others alleging that all the accused had fabricated the documents and got the lands registered in their favour. The said complaint was registered as crime No.237 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 474, 182, 120-B, 409 read with 34 IPC accordingly, charge sheet has also been filed and the same is pending consideration. It is the further case of the petitioners that the 6 th respondent, pending suit, executed Registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 31.05.2018 in favour of the 7 th respondent herein and the same was registered on 01.06.2018. Further, the 7 th respondent made an application for mutation of his name in the revenue records before the 4 th respondent wherein the 4 th respondent mutated his name in the revenue records under A.P. Record of Rights and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1971), by orders dated 13.11.2018. The said facts were not brought to the notice of the Court in O.S.No.33 of 2017. The 4 th respondent passed the order of mutation in favour of the 7 th respondent when the revenue records are already disclosing the pattadar passbook issued to the petitioners herein under Khata No.1453 and 1306 respectively. The said facts were not brought to the notice of the Court in O.S.No.33 of 2017. The 4 th respondent passed the order of mutation in favour of the 7 th respondent when the revenue records are already disclosing the pattadar passbook issued to the petitioners herein under Khata No.1453 and 1306 respectively. When the pattadar passbook and title deed issued to the petitioners were already there, the 4 th respondent has no power to pass orders of mutation dated 13.11.2018 in favour of the 7 th respondent without notice, hence, filed the present writ petition. 2. Heard Smt.Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.6 & 7 and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the official respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that, the petitioners purchased the subject lands from Sri Makam Ramanjaneyulu by way of two registered sale deeds and their names were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in their favour. While so, the 4 th respondent-Tahsildar passed impugned proceedings dated 13.11.2018 mutating the 7 th respondent name in the revenue records by deleting the petitioners names without issuing any notice as contemplated under the provisions of the Act, 1971 and Rules, 1989, as such, the order impugned is wholly unsustainable and contrary to the settled principles of law and in violation of principles of natural justice, accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition setting aside the impugned order dated 13.11.2018 and pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for 6 th & 7 th respondents in elaboration to what has been stated in the counter submitted that the 6 th respondent is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same till today even revenue records also reflects the same. Though the 6 th respondent’s name and the petitioners’ vendor name are same, the 6 th respondent never sold the subject property to the petitioners. Though the 6 th respondent’s name and the petitioners’ vendor name are same, the 6 th respondent never sold the subject property to the petitioners. After knowing that somebody fabricated the documents pertaining to the subject property for wrongful gain, the 6 th respondent obtained certified copies of the same and came to know that One Padigapati Venkata Siva Reddy impersonated him and executed sale deeds dated 09.09.2016 in favour of the petitioners herein. The said sale deeds are void in the eye of law. Further, the 6 th respondent filed a petition before the 4 th respondent on 10.07.2017 bringing all these facts to his notice and the 4 th respondent also observed that pattadar passbook produced by the 6 th respondent is genuine and pattadar passbooks produced by the petitioners are fake and fabricated, as such, the 4 th respondent issued notice dated 11.07.2017 vide Ref.No.B/64/2017 to the petitioners calling upon them to produce documentary evidences in support of their title over the subject property. As the petitioners have not responded to the same, another notice dated 13.07.2017 was issued to the petitioners to appear before him on 15.07.2017 with all relevant documents, as the petitioners failed to appear and submit documentary evidence, as a last chance, notice dated 17.07.2017 has been issued to file written explanation on or before 22.07.2017 and also to appear before him on 27.07.2017. But the petitioners neither filed any written explanation nor appeared before the 4 th respondent, as such, the 4 th respondent concluded that the documents in favour of the petitioners are fabricated and accordingly by exercising the powers conferred upon him under the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 and Rules, 1989, issued proceedings vide Ref.No.B/64/2017 dated 04.08.2017 revoking the entries for the subject land and restored the 6 th respondent name in the revenue records and the said order was not questioned by the petitioners herein. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that, the 6 th respondent has purchased the subject property vide Sale Deed bearing Document No.619/1980 dated 04.07.1980 of Sub-Registrar, Kamalapuram, and the same was gifted to the 7 th respondent under Registered Gift Sale Deed bearing Document No.1374/2018 dated 01.06.2018 of Joint Sub-Registrar, Kamalapuram, and eversince he is in possession and enjoyment of the same till date. Thereafter, the 7 th respondent made an application dated 19.10.2018 for mutation of his name in the revenue records and the 4 th respondent after due enquiry passed orders dated 13.11.2018 mutating the names of the 6 th & 7 th respondent in the revenue records. However, when criminal case is pending consideration, the Writ Court cannot consider the case of the petitioners as the sale deeds claimed by the petitioners are void in the eye of law. He further submitted that the petitioners have not questioned the earlier orders of the 4 th respondent dated 04.08.2017 but are questioning the subsequent proceedings by way of this writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader while justifying the orders passed by the Tahsildar duly contended that, if at all the petitioners have any grievance against such order, they have to file an appeal before appropriate authority but cannot file writ petition as there are disputed questions of facts involved. There is no illegality nor procedural irregularity in issuing the impugned proceedings and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides. 7. It is not in dispute that the 7 th respondent made an application dated 19.10.2018 for mutation of his name in the revenue records before the Tahsildar and the said application has been entertained thereby the impugned proceedings, carrying out the changes of entries in the revenue records regarding the subject property has been passed. The contention of the petitioners is that they purchased the subject property under registered documents and got mutated their names in the revenue records accordingly pattadar passbooks and title deeds have also been issued. The respondents are disputing the same and their case is that Sri Padigi Venkata Siva Reddy, impersonating the 6 th respondent Sri Makam Ramanjaneyulu s/o Venkata Shetty sold the property in favour of the petitioners and the sale deeds are void in the eye of law. It is also not in dispute that before mutating the 7 th respondent name, petitioners name found place in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks have also been issued in their favour. It is also not in dispute that before mutating the 7 th respondent name, petitioners name found place in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks have also been issued in their favour. If at all the pattadar passbooks are forged and fabricated, there is no material to show that any steps have been taken by the revenue authorities in cancelling them by issuing proper notice. Rightly or wrongly when the petitioners names are found in the revenue records, the 4 th respondent, before entertaining the 7 th respondent’s mutation application, has to give proper notice to the petitioners under the provisions of the Act, 1971 and Rules, 1989. 8. The 7 th respondent herein is none other than the son of the 6 th respondent wherein the 6 th respondent has executed a gift settlement deed in favour of the 7 th respondent and basing on the same, the 7 th respondent made an application for mutation of his name in the revenue records. It is not in dispute that a suit in O.S.No.33 of 2017 has been filed by the 6 th respondent for declaration of title and the same is pending consideration. 9. The record would indicate that the 6 th respondent also filed a petition before the Tahsildar, Yerraguntla Mandal, alleging that Sri Padigapati Venkata Sada Siva Reddy s/o Venkata Siva Reddy changed his name in Aadhar card as Makam Ramanjaneyulu S/o Makam Venkata Reddy and by impersonating himself as Makam Ramanjaneyulu sold the subject property and executed registered sale deeds. In that regard, the Tahsildar, Yerraguntla Mandal, after due enquiry passed orders vide Ref.No.B/64/2017 dated 04.08.2017, by virtue of powers conferred under Act, 1971 and Rules, 1989, under Section 3(3) of the Act and Rule 16(2) of the Act, revoking the entries of the subject lands made in the web land in Khatha No.926 in the name of Makam Ramanjaneyulu s/o Venkata Reddy and restored the name of the Makam Ramanjaneyulu s/o Venkata Setty and further directed the 6 th respondent to seek remedy for cancellation of the documents registered for his land by filing an application before the Sub Registrar, Kamalapuram, or the competent authority under law for cancellation of the documents registered for his lands under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Act, 1908. 10. 10. Now, the contention of the unofficial respondents is that the petitioners have not questioned the said proceedings subsequently, the impugned proceedings have been issued. Though the said proceedings have been filed along with the 4 th respondent counter, there is no material placed on record to show that notice has been served on the petitioners before passing impugned orders dated 13.11.2018. 11. This Court cannot decide whether the said orders have been passed by following the procedure contemplated under law by issuing proper notice to the petitioners or not, however, a perusal of the proceedings would indicate that the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 04.08.2017 is behind the back of the petitioners. In view of the fact that the pattadar passbooks of the petitioners have not been set aside by passing appropriate orders, the Tahsildar should have issued notices to them before mutating the 6 th & 7 th respondents name in the revenue records. As the mutation taken place in their favour behind the back of the petitioners, the mutation proceedings dated 13.11.2018 in favour of the 7 th respondent is wholly unsustainable. 12. Admittedly, suit for declaration of title in O.S.No.33 of 2017 which was filed by the unofficial respondent No.6 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa is pending consideration. When there is a suit pending before the civil Court, the revenue authorities are barred from entertaining any mutation proceedings by virtue of Section 8(2) of the Act, 1971, this aspect also should be looked into by the Tahsildar before passing orders and if such suit is still pending consideration, no orders can be passed till disposal of the suit. 13. In view of the observations made in the decision in V.Gowtham Rao v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagtial, Karimnagar District , [ 2003 (1) ALT 615 ] , civil disputes should be redressed by the Civil Courts only but not by the authorities under the Revenue Courts. If a suit is pending, the revenue authorities are precluded from entertaining the grievances under ROR Act. In the present case also a suit is pending consideration. In the said circumstances, the revenue authorities are precluded from touching revenue records and they have to act subject to the outcome of suit before the Civil Court. If a suit is pending, the revenue authorities are precluded from entertaining the grievances under ROR Act. In the present case also a suit is pending consideration. In the said circumstances, the revenue authorities are precluded from touching revenue records and they have to act subject to the outcome of suit before the Civil Court. For the reasons stated supra, inspite of pendency of the suit, the Tahsildar seems to have passed orders dated 04.08.2017 as well as the impugned proceedings dated 13.11.2018. 14. In view of the same, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: “The Tahsildar concerned shall restore back the petitioners names in the revenue records and keep the subject property in dispute register, pending disposal of the suit in O.S.No.33 of 2017 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa.” 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of . There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.