ORDER : B. Krishna Mohan, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and the learned counsel appearing for the 6 th respondent. 2. This writ petition was filed questioning the order in R.P.No. D.Dis.D2/2197/2013, dated 18.12.2025 passed by the 3 rd respondent and also the order in D.Dis.No.3379/11/C, dated 01.06.2013 passed by the 4 th respondent, whereby the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners to an extent of Ac.12.64 cents each (totaling Ac.37.92 cents) covered by Sy.Nos.150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 321, 329 of K.Bitragunta village, Zarugumilli Mandal, Prakasam District were arbitrarily cancelled, pending declaratory civil suit in O.S. No.144/2010 on the file of Additional District Judge Court, Ongole examine such orders and set aside after declaring the same as illegal, irregular. 3. The petitioners herein are the revision petitioners before the 3 rd respondent dated 18.12.2025. The 6 th respondent is the 1 st respondent therein. It is the grievance of the petitioners that without considering the facts and the legal position, the revisional authority confirmed the orders of the 4 th respondent dated 01.06.2013. The 6 th respondent herein after abnormal delay and during the pendency of the civil suit, approached the 4 th respondent by way of ROR appeal against the proceedings of the 3 rd respondent dated 15.02.2013 and 03.05.2013 in which the petitioners herein filed counter before the said authority. Basing upon the averments of the parties concerned, the following issues are framed by the said appellate authority in his order dated 01.06.2013 which are as under: Issue No.1: Whether the schedule lands belongs to the Company property or to the individual in capacity? Issue No.2: Whether the then Tahsildar has violated procedure for grant of PPB/ TDs rules framed under R.O.R. Act or not? 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the said issues are also some of the subject issues before the civil suit initiated by the 6 th respondent itself which is pending in O.S. No.144 of 2010 on the file of Additional District Judge, Ongole. But the said appellate authority upon perusal of the registered documents filed by the appellants therein came to a conclusion that the same were purchased by one Mr. N.Venkaiah on behalf of the 6 th respondent herein which is the appellant therein. But the said appellate authority upon perusal of the registered documents filed by the appellants therein came to a conclusion that the same were purchased by one Mr. N.Venkaiah on behalf of the 6 th respondent herein which is the appellant therein. But noticed that after the death of N.Venkaiah, the pattadar passbook/ title deed was transferred in favour of N.Jessi Lalitha W/o N.Venkaiah by the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 10.03.2003. Accordingly, he further noted the subsequent mutations also in respect of the subject lands. By reproducing the provisions of law, the said appellate authority came to a conclusion that the Form-VIII notice has not been published in the village and also not served on the interested parties by the then Tahsildar. Hence, he opined that the pattadar passbooks/ title deeds were issued in favour of Smt. N.J.Lalitha, Kanuru Subba Rao, Swarna China Subba Rao and Kommapati Bhaskara Rao without following the rules and violating the procedure laid down under Section 5 of A.P. Rights in Land & Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. Hence, he has cancelled the said pattadar passbook/ title deeds held in favour of the said persons as under: Sl. No. Name of the individual Sy. No. Extent IB Khata No. T.D.No. 1 N.J. Lalitha 329-1, 2 etc., 37-92 ½ 759 328309 2 Kanuru Subba Rao 329-1, 2 etc., 12-64 ½ 1343 84745 3 Swarna China Subba Rao 329-1, 2 etc., 12-64 ½ 1344 84743 4 Kommapati Bhaskara Rao 329-1, 2 etc., 12-64 ½ 1345 84744 5. Further, the 5 th respondent was directed to take action to issue pattadar passbooks/ title deeds in favour of the concerned individual after following the due procedure laid down in the A.P. Rights in Land & Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 duly publishing the Form-VIII notice in the village and also serving on the interested parties. Accordingly, the said appeal was allowed. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein as revision petitioners approached the 3 rd respondent but without considering the grounds urged by the petitioners, the revision was dismissed confirming the orders of the appellate authority vide impugned order dated 18.12.2025. The revisional authority also found the same lacuna as pointed out by the appellate authority. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein as revision petitioners approached the 3 rd respondent but without considering the grounds urged by the petitioners, the revision was dismissed confirming the orders of the appellate authority vide impugned order dated 18.12.2025. The revisional authority also found the same lacuna as pointed out by the appellate authority. When the above said civil suit is pending for declaration of title, the revenue authorities ought not to have entertained the appeal at the instance of the 6 th respondent herein for change of mutations in respect of the subject land which is forming part of the suit schedule property. 7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 submits that, the appellate authority and as well as the revisional authority following the provisions under A.P. Rights in Land & Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and Rules of 1989 passed the above said impugned orders and the mere pendency of the civil suit will not preclude the respondents from entertaining any such appeal under the above said provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder. 8. Similarly, the learned counsel appearing for the 6 th respondent submits that since Form-VIII notices were not issued and published at the relevant point of time before mutating the names of the petitioners/ purchasers in the records for the subject land, the appeal preferred by the 6 th respondent was allowed by the 4 th respondent herein and the same was confirmed in the revision by the 3 rd respondent herein. 9. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, upon consideration of the rival submissions made, upon perusal of the orders of the appellate authority and as well as the revisional authority and upon consideration of the material available on record, admittedly it is to be seen that, the above said civil suit is pending for cancellation of the sale deeds dated 11.03.2004 in respect of plaint ‘A’ schedule property therein which are registered as Doc. Nos.338/2004, 339/2004 and 340/2004 by the Sub-Registrar, S.Konda, Prakasam District and for delivery of possession of the plaint ‘A’, ‘B’ & ‘C’ schedule properties to the plaintiffs. Nos.338/2004, 339/2004 and 340/2004 by the Sub-Registrar, S.Konda, Prakasam District and for delivery of possession of the plaint ‘A’, ‘B’ & ‘C’ schedule properties to the plaintiffs. The appellate authority found that there was no proper service of Form-VIII notice either by way of publishing or by service of the same on the concerned parties and with regard to the finding even on the factum of purchase of the said properties through different registered documents by one Mr. N.Venkaiah which is disputed that they were purchased in his individual capacity but not on behalf of the 6 th respondent company. Keeping in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances, as both the revenue authorities as seen above found that there was no proper service of Form-VIII notice by way of publication and service on the individuals concerned this court comes to a conclusion that in the interest of justice, it is a case of remand to the original authority to consider the whole issue in a right perspective by applying all the facts and law after hearing all the parties concerned. 10. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the original authority i.e., the 5 th respondent for consideration afresh with regard to the mutation of the names in respect of the subject land by following the due procedure under the Pattadar Passbooks Act and Rules made thereunder by taking out notices to all the parties including the petitioners and the 6 th respondent giving due opportunity and upon publication of Form-VIII notice duly, the matter shall be taken up afresh for consideration of the submissions on the both sides with respect to their claims over the subject property and notwithstanding the above said orders and uninfluenced by the same fresh orders shall be passed by the original authority i.e., the 5 th respondent. For the said purpose, the petitioners and the 6 th respondent are permitted to approach the 5 th respondent within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order enclosing all the necessary documents in support of their claim and upon receipt of the same, the 5 th respondent shall initiate the above said enquiry strictly in accordance with law as directed above and the same shall be finalized by passing the final orders as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four (4) months thereafter. For the purpose of conducting the above said enquiry by the 5 th respondent, the impugned orders passed above by the respondent Nos.3 & 4 viz., appellate order and the revisional order are set aside. Pending the above said enquiry, there shall be an order of status quo as on today to be maintained with respect to the subject land mutations and there shall not be any alienation in whatsoever manner by either of the parties concerned. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.