IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 19129 of 2008 Between: M. Gopal Reddy S/o. Late M. Penta Reddy R/o. Rangareddyguda Village, Balanagar (M), Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District at Mahabubnagar. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar Division at Mahabubnagar. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 4 Shakali Yadamma W/o. Late Narayana R/o. Gundlapotlapally (V), Balanagar (M), Mahabubnagar 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Prohibitory declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in taking the application of the 4th respondent on File No.K/3585/2008 for grant of Occupancy Right Certiﬁcate in respect of the land in Sy.No.17/1, admeasuring Ac.6-18 guntas at Rangareddyguda (V), Balanagar (M), Mahabubnagar District totally ignoring the proceedings pending before the 1st respondent in respect of the same subject matter and further ignoring the stay orders passed by the 1st respondent in ﬁle No.F/7146/2005- F2/27/2005, dated 29-11-2005 as illegal, unlawful, contrary to law and consequently prohibit the 2nd respondent from proceeding with adjudication of ﬁle No.K/3585/2008 unless, until the appeal pending before the 1st respondent is ﬁnally adjudicated and decided. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.19129 of 2008 Order: This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner claiming that he is the absolute owner of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.6.18 guntas in Survey No.17/1 situated at Rangareddyguda Village, Balanagar Mandal, having purchased the same from one late Sri Chakali Narayana, and was in possession and enjoyment of the said property as on the date of vesting i.e., 01.11.1973. However, the second respondent erroneously granted Occupancy Right Certiﬁcate in favour of one Chakali Balaiah on 08.07.1987, in respect of the said land. Aggrieved thereby, it is stated that the petitioner ﬁled an appeal under Section 24 of the A.P. (Telengana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) before the ﬁrst respondent, viz., the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar who by an order, dated 29.11.2005, suspended all further proceedings pursuant to order, dated 08.07.1987, passed by the second respondent. It is stated that the said appeal is still pending consideration before the first respondent. While so, the fourth respondent claiming to be the wife of late Sri Chakali Narayana ﬁled an application before the second respondent seeking Occupancy Right Certiﬁcate (ORC) in her favour in respect of the very same land situated in Survey No.17/1 and the second respondent ignoring the fact that the appeal ﬁled by the petitioner before the ﬁrst respondent is pending, entertained the application and contemplated an enquiry for grant of ORC in her favour. Hence, the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and at their request the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that as per the provisions of the Act, after receiving the application of the fourth respondent, the second respondent has issued notice to the petitioner and without submitting any explanation to the said notice, the petitioner has straight away approached this Court. Even according to the petitioner, pursuant to the application made by the fourth respondent seeking issuance of ORC, the impugned notice was issued by the second respondent to the fourth respondent as well as to the petitioner herein to appear before him on 08.09.2008 at the oﬃce of the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Mahabubnagar and to adduce necessary evidence in support of their respective claims. Without submitting any explanation to the said notice, the petitioner has approached this Court stating that even during the pendency of the appeal ﬁled by him before the ﬁrst respondent, the impugned notice was issued by the second respondent without taking into consideration the said fact. In the circumstances, the writ petitioner is directed to file his explanation to the impugned notice brining to the notice of the second respondent about the pendency of the appeal before the first respondent. Accordingly, giving liberty to the petitioner to submit his explanation, which shall be considered by the second respondent in accordance with law, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 04.09.2008 VGB/VV