THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.25817_of 1997 Dated:26.08.2009 Between: Ramnivas Jaju. ….Petitioner And Syed Abdul Wahab Quadri, And others. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.25817_of 1997 ORDER: The petitioner’s application before respondent No.33 to implead in a proceeding under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952 (the Act, for brevity), between respondent Nos.1 to 29 was rejected by the impugned order dated 18.09.1997. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent Nos.1 to 29 filed a petition under Section 4 of the Act alleging that they are owners of certain lands situated at Asifnagar correlated to Town Survey Nos.1 to 40, 49 to 115, Block-9, Ward No.25 and T.S.Nos.1 to 21 etc. They alleged that they have a sanad in their favour and sought for confirmation of muntakam. They also made an application for interim orders to protect Atiya Sultani land situated at Guddimalkapur Village from land grabbers and encroachers. The petitioner claims that his grandfather purchased the lands in dispute in a Court auction under registered sale deed. It was claimed that he was a party respondent in W.P.No.15730 of 1996 filed by some of the respondents. He, therefore, filed the implead application, which was dismissed by the impugned order. Though the writ petition was admitted on 05.08.1998, the respondents – both Official and unofficial – have not filed any counter affidavit. The question is very simple. A reading of the impugned order of the Commissioner would show that the petitioner is allegedly purchaser of the land from the grandfather of respondent Nos.1 to 29. He was also a party respondent to earlier writ petition. Whether he has anything to do with the confirmation of muntakam is altogether a different question from the one whether the petitioner having purchased the land from grandfather of the respondents is entitled to be heard to the extent of protecting his right in respect of this land purchased. In that view of the matter, he is a proper party to the proceedings. The Commissioner lost sight of this, and therefore, this Court holds that the petitioner be impleaded as party respondent to the proceedings pending before the Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records, in CSS & LR’s Case No.NA1/383/96, dated 18.09.1997. If the enquiry is still pending, the Commissioner may dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 26.08.2009 vs