ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

“ …….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned orders of the 2nd respondent in Rc.B.No.393/2018 dated 03.12.2018 in keeping the earlier mutation orders passed in Rc.B.No.393/2018, dated 08.10.2018, in abeyance without jurisdiction even though, petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the schedule land purchased in public auction conducted by the official receiver culminating in to registration of sale deed No.785/2018, dated 15.03.2018 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the aforesaid impugned orders….”

2. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the public auction conducted by the official receiver in I.P.No.12/2007, he purchased agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2.77 cents in Sy.No.507/1 and Ac.1.61 ‰ cents in Sy.No.507/2 of Pagidyala Village & Mandal of Kurnool District vide registered sale deed No.785/2018, dated 15.03.2018, from the official receiver. Subsequent to the said purchase, the petitioner made an application through „Mee Seva‟ on 20.08.2018 for mutation of his name in the revenue records and for issuance of pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioner. Further case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent after conducting enquiry, by affording an opportunity to the concerned parties, including the respondents 3 to 5 herein, who are daughters of G. Sangam Reddy, passed order on 08.10.2018, allowing the petitioner‟s application for mutation and issuance of pattadar passbooks. Accordingly, the petitioner‟s name got mutated in the revenue records. The further case of the petitioner is that he received a notice dated 03.12.2018 stating that O.S.No.32 of 2018 has been filed by respondents 3 to 5 for partition and the same is pending and, therefore, mutation orders dated 08.10.2018 are kept in abeyance till disposal of the said suit.

It is further case of the petitioners that respondents 3 to 5 filed their claim petition in I.A.No.7 of 2010 in I.P.No.12 of 2007 and the same was dismissed and later filed claim petition in E.A.No.152 of 2008 in E.P.No.33 of 2007 in O.S.No.26 of 2006, to raise attachment over the property and the same was also dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur on 19.07.2010. Aggrieved by the same, respondents 3 to 5 herein preferred first appeal in A.S.No.53 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Kurnool and the same was also dismissed on 17.07.2014. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondents 3 to 5, having lost their case in all the courts, now filed frivolous partition suit in 2018 i.e. O.S.No.32 of 2018. Aggrieved by the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent in keeping the mutation orders in abyeyance, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 3. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit, denying the allegations and, inter alia, contending that because the suit filed by respondents 3 to 5 is pending, the mutation orders dated 08.10.2018 are kept in abeyance.

4. Respondents 3 to 5 have not filed their counter.

5. Heard Sri K. Naga Phanindra, learned counsel, representing Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader and Sri P. Narasimhulu, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that the 2nd respondent after passing mutation orders becomes functus-officio and he has no jurisdiction or authority to keep the mutation orders in abeyance. He further contended that there is no interim order in favour of respondents 3 to 5 in the said suit and if at all respondents 3 to 5 are aggrieved, they have every remedy available under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Lands and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971. In view of the same, the impugned proceedings are without jurisdiction.

Hence, prayed to allow the