IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11635 of 2009 Between: C. Narendranath S/o.C. Balkishan R/o. H.No.14-3-58, Goshamahal, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Nimmala Narahari, S/o. Veera Mallaiah R/o. Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ or order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the notices No.371/2008 dated 06.01.2009, 06.03.2009 and 02.05.2009 issued by the 1st respondent Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and unconstitutional and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.HANUMANTH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Writ Petition NO.11635 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER The writ petition is premature. The petitioner alleges that the 2nd respondent along with his father had conveyed title in agricultural land of an extent of Ac.14.09 cents in Sy.No.197 of Madinaguda village to Suryanarayana Raju & Others, who executed a registered sale deed No.999 of 1979 in favour of the petitioner, his mother and brothers. Their names were also mentioned in the Revenue Records. Thereafter the 2nd respondent applied to the 1st respondent under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act,1971 ( for short “the Act”) for mutation of his name in the revenue records. The 1st respondent issued a notice dated.06-01- 2009 to which the petitioner responded by way of objections on 24.01.2009 placing the relevant facts for consideration of the 1st respondent. Again the 1st respondent issued a notice dated.06.03.2009 to which the petitioner responded on 04.04.2009. Yet again the 1st respondent issued what is called a “final notice” on 02.05.2009. The petitioner again responded on 23.05.2009. Tired with repeatedly having to respond to unending notices issued by the 1st respondent, the writ petition is filed. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on instructions states that the 1st respondent has not yet passed an order. As the petitioner has already responded not once but thrice to the same type of notices issued by the 1st respondent, the petitioner need not again respond if the 1st respondent indulges in further conduct of issuing endless notices. If his responses are already on record, the 1st respondent shall pass an order in accordance with law duly considering the objections lodged by the petitioner. No adjudication is however called for at this stage of the matter as what are issued are mere notices. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of at the stage of admission with the above observation. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 23rd JUNE 2009 *TSNR