S.V. Bhatt, J.

1. Heard Mr. O. Manoher Reddy and Mr. K.V. Simhadri for writ petitioner, Mr. Vedula Srinivas for 5th respondent and the learned Government Pleader (Revenue) for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in WP No. 40755 of 2017.

2. The parties are referred as arrayed in WP No. 40755 of 2017.

3. Kesani Yedukondalu filed WP No. 40775 of 2017 for certiorari to call for the records relating to order dated 3.10.2017 in RP No. 5 of 2015 in proceeding Rc. No. 3592/2015/D2 of the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam District/respondent No. 2 and quash the same as illegal, contrary to law and vitiated by material irregularities.

4. Jampani Krishna Babu and another filed WP No. 41358 of 2017 challenging the order dated 3.10.2017 in RP No. 5 of 2015 in proceeding Rc. No. 3592/2015/D2 of the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam.

5. The subject-matter of these two writ petitions relates to an extent of Acs. 6-00 in Sy. No. 99/2 of Kapuluppada Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal. The issue arises under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act').

6. This Court, after hearing the learned Counsel for all the parties in WA Nos. 1041 and 1055 of 2018, on 10.9.2018, passed the following order:

"We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant in these two writ appeals, which are against interlocutory orders passed during the course of two writ petitions which were considered by the learned Single Judge in a consolidated manner. We have also heard the learned Counsel for unofficial respondents in these writ appeals who represent the writ petitioners. We have also heard the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

In the fitness of things, having noticed that the fundamental disputes are essentially in the domain of private disputes between the unofficial respondents to these writ appeals, the learned Counsel on all sides have acceded to our suggestion that the writ petitions be withdrawn and heard alongwith these writ appeals since no useful purpose would be served by merely hearing the writ appeals against the interlocutory order. It is also agreed that the parties would make submissions based on the pleadings already placed on record. The Government is not required to now place on record any pleadings. However, it will make available the entire official records in connection with the case.

Post on 17.9.2018".

7. The Counsel have consented to disposing of the writ petitions. The learned Government Pleader has produced the record in File No. 3592/2015/D2 and also the Settlement Land Register pertaining to Sy. Nos. 99, 99/1 and 99/2; Classification Register pertaining to Sy. Nos. 99, 99/1 and 99/2; 10(1) Adangal Register pertaining to Sy. No. 99/2; 1-B Register maintained under the Act for Khatha Nos. 1478, 1479 and 1480 and also copy of order of this Court in WP No. 24912 of 2010. The learned Government Pleader through our order dated 10.9.2018 was relieved from filing counter-affidavit in the writ petitions, however, basing on instructions the Government Pleader has received, a few submissions are made on behalf of respondents 1 to 4/Government in the writ petitions. We would refer to these submissions at appropriate stage of our order.

8. Dr. Rednam Ahi Krishna filed revision under Section 9 of the Act aggrieved by the order in Rc. No. 747/2010/C dated 13.4.2011 passed by Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam under Section 5(1)(B) of the Act, whereunder pattadar pass book/title deed was granted in favour of the writ petitioner. The case of Dr. Rednam Ahi Krishna is that the subject-matter of writ petition was part of Acs. 24-30 cts., covered by old Sy. No. 280 and Patta No. 331. The said extent of land originally was owned and held by one Dendukuri Seetha Rama Raju S/o. Rama Raju. The 5th respondent claims right, title and possession to the subject-matter through Court auction sale in favour of 5th respondent's mother, and that possession of old Sy. No. 280 was delivered to her by the Court Amin on 26.10.1965 in EA No. 791 of 1965. The 5th r