THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No.26786 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the 1st respondent to consider their complaints dated 23.05.2006 and 30.08.2006 and initiate disciplinary action against respondents 5 to 7, and also a further direction to the 3rd respondent to rectify the records in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1.12 gts. in Sy.No.45 situated at Vallampahad village, Karimnagar Mandal and District, in pursuance of the orders dated 16.04.2010 passed by the 4th respondent. The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners of the land to an extent of 0.26 gts. each in Sy.No.145 situated at Vallampahad village, Karimnagar Mandal and District, having inherited the same from their father. While so, one K.Kumar Maharshi got created a fake sale deed in respect of the said property in favour of his wife, the 8th respondent herein, with impersonation signature of one N.H.Bhaskar Reddy (GPA) and applied for mutation. It is the case of the petitioners that without issuing any notice to them and without conducting any enquiry, the 5th respondent passed the mutation proceedings dated 26.04.2006 in favour of the holder of the fictitious sale deed, basing on the false report of respondent No.6. Thereupon, complaining about the loss sustained by the petitioners due to illegal acts of respondent 5 to 7 and also the bribe demanded by respondents 5 to 7, the petitioners submitted their complaints on 23.05.2006 and 30.08.2006 to the 1st respondent-District Collector, Karimnagar, requesting to take disciplinary action against the respondents 5 to 7 and also to conduct an enquiry into the matter. The grievance of the petitioners is that till date no action has been taken on the complaints dated 23.05.2006 and 30.08.2006 submitted by them, and the representation dated 24.04.2010 made by them to the 3rd respondent, for rectification of entries in revenue records, is also not yet considered. Hence, this writ petition. Respondent No.4 filed his counter affidavit, wherein while denying the allegations leveled by the petitioners, it is stated that it is a fact that petitioner No.1, stating that his name is not being recorded as pattedar in the revenue records for the land to an extent of Ac.0.26 gts. which fell to his share, has filed petition on 03.10.2005 before respondent No.4, for rectification of wrong entries in the pahani. It is also stated that after conducting enquiry and obtaining the legal opinion of the Government Pleader, the request of petitioner No.1 was considered by respondent No.4 and his name was recorded as pattedar in the pahani in respect of the land which fell to his share. It is further stated that on the complaints submitted by the petitioners, enquiry is going on and if the allegations are proved, appropriate action will be taken by the disciplinary authority. It is also stated that the petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.3491 of 2006 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, for cancellation of registered document alleged to have been executed by N.H.Bhaskar Reddy (GPA) in favour of the 8th respondent, and the same is still pending. Further, it is stated that aggrieved by the orders dated 17.03.2007 of the 3rd respondent, the 8th respondent filed revision under Section 9 of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971 before the Joint Collector, Karimnagar, and it is also pending. Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits that in the enquiry conducted pursuant to the complaints submitted by the petitioners, it is found that the allegations made by the petitioners are not genuine. However, inasmuch as the suit filed by the petitioners in O.S.No.3491 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, for cancellation of registered document alleged to have been executed by the said GPA in favour of the 8th respondent is pending consideration, the revision filed by the 8th respondent against the order of the 3rd respondent dated 17.03.2007 is still pending consideration, and further in view of the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader and also the averments made in the counter affidavit, I am of the considered opinion that the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,J 19.01.2011 v v