- ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief : “…declaring the inaction of the respondents 4 and 5 in trying to dispossess the petitioner from his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.16 cents in Sy.No.25/2, Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.No.17/8 and Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.18/26, situated in Guda village, Hukumpeta Mandal, Paderu Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of Constitution of India and also violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 4 and 5 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner and pass such other ….” 2. It is the case of the petitioner that an extent of Ac.2.16 cents in Sy.No.25/2, Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.No.17/8 and Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.18/26, situated in Guda village, Hukumpeta Mandal, Paderu Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam District (for short, „subject property?) was purchased by his late grandfather Kambidi Ramanna, s/o. Gasanna under a registered sale deed bearing document No.123/74, dated 19.11.1974 for a valid consideration from one Thudumu Rathanna and his son Thudumu Lakshmaiah, and he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property from the date of his purchase, and he was issued pattadar pass book and title deeds in respect of the said property and he was cultivating the same. - 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that one Thudumu Bhaskara Rao, s/o. late Lakshmanna represented that an extent of Ac.2.50 cents called Vaduru mamidi Garuvu; Ac.0.50 cents called Jami Mamidi and Ac.0.02 cents of single plot near Gadda, were mortgaged to grandfather of the petitioner Kambidi Ramanna, by his father while they were young, for petty amounts and requested to hand over the lands to him. He filed a petition before the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Paderu under L.R. Regulations for restoration of the lands under the D.R. Regulations. But, the authority dismissed the petition holding that prohibition of D.R. Regulations is not applicable since the lands are covered by sale deed, and that as per enjoyment and settlement records, grandfather of the petitioner is rightful owner of the lands under dispute and hence directed him not to interfere/obstruct grandfather of the petitioner from carrying out agricultural operations in the lands. 4 th respondent-Tahsildar also certified the transaction held between grandfather of the petitioner and Thudumu Lakshmaiah through his Letter L.Dis.No.500/93-C, dated 30.08.1993. Grandfather of the petitioner paid cist for three survey numbers on 28.1.1993, 20.2.1994 and 20.1.1995 and his name was mutated in revenue records and he was issued cultivated adangal for the said three survey numbers by the then Tahsildar. After demise of his grandfather, name of father of the petitioner Kamidi Ramachandrudu was mutated in revenue records and he was issued pattadar pass book vide Khata No.16 and he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property till his death. - 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No.5 filed a representation before respondent No.3 stating that his father Thudumu Kannayya mortgaged patta land to grandfather of the petitioner by name Kambidi Ramanna for Rs.800/- and when the borrower offered to repay amount and asked for return of the lands, the lender threatened him with dire consequences and did not do so, and therefore requested to nullify the mortgage and return the lands to him. Respondent No.3, vide Order in D.R.No.3/93, dated 20.08.1993, held that there is no permission from 2 nd respondent to sell away the entire property of Lakshmaiah and nullified both the mortgage and the consequent illicit productive sales, and ordered restoration of the schedule lands to respondent No.5. As against the said Order dated 20.08.1973 passed by respondent No.3, father of the petitioner preferred A.S.No.3 of 1994 before the Agent to Government and Collector, Visakhapatnam (respondent No.2), and the appellate authority dismissed the Appeal vide Order dated 11.06.1994. Aggrieved by the Order dated 11.06.1994 passed in A.S.No.3 of 1994 passed by respondent No.2, father of petitioner filed W.P.No.2848 of 1999 before the High Court, and vide Order dated 23.04.2007, the said Writ Petition was disposed of, with a direction to father of the petitioner to file revision before 1 st respondent within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said Order, and till such time, the interim order dated 25.02.1999 was directed to continue. - 5. It is stated that father of the petitioner filed a revision before 1st respondent through his counsel and no order is passed till death of his father and the interim order passed by this Court continued throughout his life. - 5. It is stated that father of the petitioner filed a revision before 1st respondent through his counsel and no order is passed till death of his father and the interim order passed by this Court continued throughout his life. It is stated that Sri P.Booth Tucker of Visakhapatnam was looking after court matters and after demise of his father on 17.05.2020, the petitioner tried to contact the said counsel, but he could not find whereabouts of the counsel, and hence, copies of the revision filed before the Government by his father, could not be filed along with the Writ Petition. - 6. According to the petitioner, the subject property was in the name of his father, and after demise of his father, his name was mutated in revenue records and he was issued pattadar pass book and title deed vide Khata No.180 and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. It is his case that on 24.07.2021, at the instance of the Station House Officer, Hukumpet police station, he went to police station where he was informed that a letter Rc.No.141/2021/Sa/dated 02.07.2021 was sent by 4 th respondent stating that on the request of 5th respondent herein to implement court orders, he directed the revenue officials to conduct enquiry, and they submitted a report on 02.07.2021 after enquiry, and basing on the said report, 4th respondent directed the Police to implement orders of the Courts. It is alleged that pursuant to the same, the Station House Officer directed the petitioner not to harvest the crop which is already raised by him, and thereupon he approached this Court by way of filing W.P.No.16359 of 2021, which is pending adjudication. - 7. It is further stated that officials of 4 th respondent are trespassing illegally and high-handedly into the subject property at the instance of 5th respondent, causing inconvenience to the petitioner in cultivating the land, and the 4 th respondent is sending his officials along with 5 th respondent men, to occupy the property in high handed manner without following due process of law. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 8. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 8. 4 th respondent-Tahsildar filed counter affidavit denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and stating inter alia that father of the petitioner failed to file a revision before the Government against the Order dated 11.06.1994 in A.S.No.3 of 1994, in compliance of the order of this Court dated 23.04.2007 in W.P.No.2848 of 1999, though there was much time gap between the Order passed by this Court and the date of death of the father of the petitioner.It is further stated that as per webland IB copy dated 06.06.2020, name of Kambidi Ramachandruru was mentioned as pattadar of the subject land and the said entries were mutated during the period of the then Tahsildar, Hukumpet by name P.Veerabhadra rao, and later, the same entries were entered in the webland 1-B along with other survey numbers by the then Tahsildar vide Mee-seva application in the year 2021 in the name of petitioner-Kambidi Chinnibabu as per Webland 1-B copy dated 09.06.2021 under Khata No.184, and later the subject lands were mutated in the name of respondent No.5 vide Khatha No.190 vide application dated 24.08.2021. There is ambiguity in mutation of entries of the subject land, and the then Tahsildar has not followed the Rules envisaged in RoR Act and it is not known as to how he issued pattadar pass books to both the petitioner and 5th respondent within a span of two months, and no documents are available for cancellation of pattadar pass book issued in favour of petitioner, Kambidi Chinnababu, s/o. Ramachandruru before issuing pattadar pass book to respondent No.5, and that the then Tahsildar should have issued prior notice to the petitioner calling for his explanation before issuing pattadar pass book in favour of 5 th respondent. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. - 9. 5 th respondent filed counter affidavit denying the material allegations in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and stating inter alia that his father purchased the land from Lakshmaiah on 24.09.1974, and respondent No.3 vide Order dated 20.08.1993 in D.R.No.3/93 discussed both legal and factual position and nullified both the mortgage and the consequent illicit productive sales and ordered restoration of the subject property to him. Appeal filed by father of the petitioner was dismissed by 2nd respondent vide Order dated 11.06.1994 in A.S.No.3/94, against which father of petitioner filed W.P.No.2848 of 1999, which was disposed of by this Court directing the petitioner?s father to file revision before the Government and to maintain status quo till disposal of the revision. 1 st respondent can alone place on record as to whether any revision is filed by father of the petitioner pursuant to the said direction, since the latter is no more. It is further stated that neither the petitioner nor his father, is in possession of the subject property, and this respondent is in possession of the subject property.Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. - 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Tribal Welfare for respondents 1 and 3, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 2 and 3 and Sri G.Koti Nagulu, learned counsel for respondent No.5. Perused the material on record. 11. It is the case of the petitioner that the subject land was purchased by his late grandfather Kambidi Ramanna, s/o. Gasanna under a registered sale deed bearing document No.123/74, dated 19.11.1974 for a valid consideration from one Thudumu Rathanna and his son Thudumu Lakshmaiah, and he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property from the date of his purchase, and he was issued pattadar pass book and title deeds in respect of the said property and he was cultivating the same. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to a representation filed by respondent No.5 stating that his father Thudumu Kannayya mortgaged patta land to grandfather of the petitioner by name Kambidi Ramanna for Rs.800/- and when the borrower offered to repay amount and asked return of the lands, the lender threatened him with dire consequences and did not do so, and therefore he requested to nullify the mortgage and return the lands to him, respondent No.3, vide Order in D.R.No.3/93, dated 20.08.1993, ordered restoration of the schedule lands to respondent No.5. It is also not in dispute that as against the said Order dated 20.08.1973 passed by respondent No.3, father of the petitioner preferred A.S.No.3 of 1994 before respondent No.2-the Agent to Government and Collector, Visakhapatnam, and the appellate authority dismissed the Appeal vide Order dated 11.06.1994. It is also not in dispute that as against the said Order dated 20.08.1973 passed by respondent No.3, father of the petitioner preferred A.S.No.3 of 1994 before respondent No.2-the Agent to Government and Collector, Visakhapatnam, and the appellate authority dismissed the Appeal vide Order dated 11.06.1994. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 11.06.1994 passed by respondent No.2, father of petitioner filed W.P.No.2848 of 1999 before the High Court, and vide Order dated 23.04.2007, the said Writ Petition was disposed of, with a direction to father of the petitioner to file revision before 1st respondent within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said Order, and till such time, the interim order dated 25.02.1999 was directed to continue. - 12. According to respondent No.4, father of the petitioner failed to file a revision before the Government against the Order dated 11.06.1994 in A.S.No.3 of 1994 passed by 2nd respondent, in compliance with the order of this Court dated 23.04.2007 in W.P.No.2848 of 1999, though there was much time gap between the Order passed by this Court and the date of death of the father of the petitioner. According to the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents, no revision is preferred by the father of the petitioner as against the Order dated 11.06.1994 in A.S.No.3 of 1994 passed by respondent No.2. The petitioner also did not file copy of the revision filed by his father. The explanation offered therefor, by the petitioner is that one Sri P.Booth Tucker of Visakhapatnam was looking after court matters and after demise of his father on 17.05.2020, the petitioner tried to contact the said counsel, but he could not find whereabouts of the counsel. - 13. According to counter affidavit of respondent No.4, as per webland IB copy dated 06.06.2020, name of Kambidi Ramachandruru (father of petitioner) was mentioned as pattadar of the subject land and the said entries were mutated during the period of the then Tahsildar, Hukumpet by name P.Veerabhadra rao, and later, the same entries were entered in the webland 1-B along with other survey numbers by the then Tahsildar vide Mee-seva application in the year 2021 in the name of Kambidi Chinnibabu (petitioner herein) as per Webland 1-B copy dated 09.06.2021 under Khata No.184, and later the subject lands were mutated in the name of respondent No.5 vide Khatha No.190 vide application dated 24.08.2021. According to respondent No.4, there is ambiguity in mutation of entries of the subject land, and the then Tahsildar has not followed the Rules envisaged in RoR Act and it is not known as to how he issued pattadar pass books to both the petitioner and 5 th respondent within a span of two months, and no documents are available for cancellation of pattadar pass book issued in favour of petitioner and before issuing pattadar pass book to respondent No.5, and that the then Tahsildar should have issued prior notice to the petitioner calling for his explanation before issuing pattadar pass book in favour of 5th respondent. - 14. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and as substantive rights of the petitioner are involved in the matter, this Court feels that the petitioner can be delegated to avail the remedy of revision before 1st respondent, and an opportunity can be provided to the petitioner to avail the remedy of filing revision before 1 st respondent, as against the Order dated 11.06.1994 in A.S.No.3 of 1994 passed by 2nd respondent. 15. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to prefer a revision before 1st respondent as against the Order dated - 11.06.1994 in A.S.No.3 of 1994 passed by 2 nd respondent, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Upon the revision being filed within the time stipulated in this Order, 1 st respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders in the said revision in accordance with law after affording opportunity to all the concerned, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the said revision. Till the said exercise is completed, there shall be status quo in respect of the subject property. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.