THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.33216 OF 2011 ORDER: The order under challenge in this Writ Petition is the proceedings of the first respondent dated 03.12.2011 whereby the third respondent herein was impleaded as the second respondent in the revision. Several contentions are raised before this Court by Sri M. Vidyasagar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, including that the proceedings on which the third respondent herein had placed reliance on, and the proceedings before the Board of Revenue between the donor, (Sri Pila Apparao of Ac.2-00 of land in favour of the Gnanananda Ashram), and the third respondent herein were not only passed behind the petitioner’s back but also that the petitioner herein was not even arrayed as a respondent in those proceedings much less was he given an opportunity of being heard. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the subject matter of the revision before the Commissioner of Appeals relates to an extent of Ac.4-00 of land in Survey No.19/1 which has no connection whatsoever with the third respondent nor was it the subject matter of examination before the Board of Revenue; and the order, impleading the third respondent as the second respondent in the present revision, is illegal. The revision, before the first respondent, was preferred by the Government in the year 2004. Granting interim relief would needlessly prolong a long pending litigation. The petitioner’s interest can, instead, be adequately protected if he is permitted to file his written statement, and such other applications which he considers appropriate, in the pending revision raising all such objections as are available to him in law with regards the documents placed before the first respondent by the third respondent. The first respondent shall consider all such objections which the petitioner may raise, in accordance with law, before disposing of the revision pending before him. It is also made clear that, in case the first respondent passes an order in the revision adverse to the petitioner herein, it would also be open to the petitioner to question the impugned order in the present Writ Petition, along with the order in the revision, before the appropriate forum. Subject to the observations hereinabove mentioned, I see no reason to interdict the revision proceedings pending before the first respondent. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J December 23, 2011 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. B/O.MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.33216 OF 2011 December 23, 2011 MD