IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 24707 of 2007 Between: 1 Smt.Rukasana Waljahi, W/o.Dr.Masood Haq, R/o.H.No.10-2-281/3,Shantinagar,Hyderabad-28 2 Smt.Muntaz Sultana, W/o.Majhar UI Haq, R/o.16-8-536/1,Ftiquar House, Beside Akbar Towers,New Malakpet,Hyd-24 ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, Goshamahal,Hyd 2 M.R.O, Hayathnagar(M), R.R Dist 3 Yella Swamy Reddy S/o.Late Sathi Reddy, R/o.Anajpur(V), Hayathnagar(M),R.R Dist 4 Yella Krishna Reddy, S/o.Late Sathi Reddy, R/o.Anajpur(V), Hayathnagar(M),R.R Dist .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue appropriate writ,order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in disposing off the appeal A2/753/06 by orders dt.3-9-2007 dismissing the appeal without hearing the matter on assuming his office as unjust, whimsical,illegal,without jurisdiction and consequently direct the 1st respondent to take up appeal No.A2/753/06 afresh for de-nova enquiry by giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner by setting aside the orders dt.3-9-2007 in file No.A2/753/06 in the interest of justice adn to pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.VENKAT RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 24707 of 2007 Order: The petitioners state that as against the orders dated 03.06.1997, passed by the 2nd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayatnagar, mutating the land in an extent of Ac.47-02 guntas in Survey No. 264 in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein, they preferred appeal under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act), before the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 1st respondent, without affording any opportunity of hearing, dismissed the said appeal, by order dated 03.09.2007. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions. When the matter is taken up for admission, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, submitted that as against the impugned order dated 03.09.2007, passed by the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, a revision under Section 9 of the Act lies to the Joint Collector, but the petitioners without availing the said remedy have approached this Court directly. Learned counsel for the petitioners agreed to avail the said remedy. In view of the agreed stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The petitioners are at liberty to avail the remedy of revision available to them against the impugned order under Section 9 of the Act before the Joint Collector. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 18.06.2008 Ksr/Nsr