THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.22285 OF 2009 DATED: 13.11.2009 Between: Nalla Pentaiah .. Petitioner And The Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, R.R. District, Malakunta, Goshamahal Road, Hyderabad. .. Respondent ORDER: The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 19.09.2009 passed by the respondent- Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, whereunder the request of the petitioner herein and another for grant of certificate under Section 38 (E) of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.413, 414, 421 and 422 situated at Thimmapur Village, Kandukur Mandal of Ranga Reddy District, was rejected. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the aforesaid case was finally heard by the respondent on 22.08.2009 and reserved for orders, and thereafter he filed a petition under Section 151 C.P.C., on 09.09.2009, which was acknowledged by the respondent on the same date, seeking to reopen the case, to enable him to file certain documents and submit the oral and written arguments, but, without passing any orders on the said petition, the respondent passed the impugned orders on 19.09.2009, which is arbitrary and illegal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. It appears, the petitioner has neither produced any documentary evidence nor filed reply to the counter filed by the opposite party before the respondent, and after the matter was reserved for orders, he came up with a petition under Section 151 C.P.C., seeking to reopen the case. Be that as it may, the respondent is supposed to dispose of the said petition, but he did not do so and passed the impugned order dated 19.09.2009, even without making any reference to the said petition in the impugned order. However, recalling the impugned order for that lapse on the part of the respondent, at this stage, is not desirable and it is always open for the petitioner to avail the remedy of statutory appeal against the impugned order, before the appropriate authority. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 13th November, 2009. IBL