The court established that the maintenance of a dispute register requires statutory backing, and a partition suit does not fall under Section 8(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act.

This Court made the following Judgment :

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.

The appellant herein had filed O.S.No.76 of 2015, against the 5^th respondent, before the Principal District Judge, Nellore, for partition of land situated in various survey numbers of Brahmanakraka Village, Jaladanki Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. An injunction restraining alienation of the suit schedule property, is said to have been issued in I.A.No.200 of 2015, in the said suit. The trial and arguments in the suit are said to have been completed and the suit was reserved for Judgment, on 27.04.2023, by the Principal District Judge, Nellore and the same is pending for Judgment.

2. The appellant, approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.17278 of 2024, on the ground that the respondents had executed nominal sale deeds in favour of respondents 7 to 11, at the instigation and under the guidance of respondent No.6, for the purposes of depriving the claims, of the appellant, over the said land.

3. The appellant further contends that the Tahsildar, Jaladanki Mandal, in proceedings bearing Rc.No.915/2019 had issued an endorsement, in September 2021, which was challenged by the 6^th respondent, as G.P.A holder of respondents 9 and 10, before this Court by way of W.P.No.14865 of 2022. However, no orders were passed in the said writ. Thereafter, the wife of the appellant is said to have filed W.P.No.32470 of 2022, to stop the 6^th respondent from evicting the petitioner and his wife, from the residential house occupied by them, on the basis of a sale deed executed by the 5^th respondent. An interim direction is said to have been issued by this Court, on 30.09.2022.

4. The appellant states that he had approached respondents 2 and 3, namely the District Collector and the Tahsildar to place the property in question, in the dispute register and accordingly, the same was entered into the dispute register bearing No.78 of 2012 by proceedings dated 28.10.2021. The appellant contends that the Tahsildar, at the instance of the 6^th respondent, had removed the said lands from the dispute register and such an action is clearly impermissible and requires to be set aside.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, obtained written instructions and placed them before the learned Single Judge. The written instructions stated that there was no direction from any competent authority, to keep the subject lands in a dispute register and that the subject lands were never included in the dispute register. In the circumstances, there was no valid case for the appellant as the lands were never entered in the dispute register itself. The learned Single Judge after recording these instructions had taken the view that the apprehension of the appellant is misplaced, especially in view of the fact that there was an interim direction granted by the Principal District judge, Nellore, on 18.09.2019 and dismissed the Writ Petition.

6. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the appellant has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Appeal. The primary ground of appeal by the appellant is that the Tahsildar, by proceedings, dated 28.10.2021, had informed the appellant that the lands were included in the dispute register. The Appellant has produced the information obtained by him, under the Right to Information Act, showing that certain digital signatures, made in relation to the land in question, had been revoked.

7. The Respondents No. 6 to 11 had filed a counter affidavit. In this Counter affidavit it is stated that the trial court, while granting an injunction, in I.A.No. 200 of 2015, had observed that various items of the suit schedule property had already been sold by the 5^th respondent to the respondents 6 to 11 and granted injunction only in relation to the unsold items in the suit schedule and not the entire suit schedule property. The respondents 6 to 11 would submit that the appellant has suppressed this fact by producing an extension order, instead of the initial order of injunction