IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 773 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17/10/2008 in WP No.10140 of 2002 on the file of the High Court) Between: Vasagoni Susheela W/o. Chakrapani R/o. H.No. 5-6-36, Yapral Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, R.R. District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Smt. Jakkula Sakku Bai W/o. Late Mallaiah R/o. 8-66, Yapral Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, R.R. District. 2 Smt. Bhagya Laxmi W/o. Late Sai Baba R/o. 8-66, Yapral Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, R.R. District. 3 Master J. Abhisekh W/o. Late Sai Baba Writ Petitioner No.2 R/o. 8-66, Yapral Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, R.R. District. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer Chella Division R.R. District at Domalguda, Hyderabad. 5 Jakkula Rajamma W/o. Late Balaiah R/o. 8-0128, Yapral Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, R.R. District. 6 Smt. Jakkula Laxmi W/o. Late Krishna R/o. Yapral Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, R.R. District. 7 Sri Jakkula Siree S/o. Late Krishna R/o. Yapral Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, R.R. District. 8 Sri Jakkula Babu S/o. Late Krishna R/o. Yapral Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, R.R. District. 9. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.P.VENKATASWAMY Counsel for the Respondents:1,to3 and 5 to 8: MR.V.TULASI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 and 9: G.P. for Revenue The Court made the following Judgment: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.773 of 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This Writ Appeal is directed against the orders passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.10140 of 2002, dated 17.10.2008 whereby and whereunder the learned single Judge remanded the matter for fresh consideration to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, the original authority. The appellant is the respondent No.2 in the writ petition. The unofficial respondents-writ petitioners filed the aforementioned writ petition before the learned single Judge questioning the order dated 7.5.2001 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, through which, the Joint Collector dismissed the appeal of the writ petitioners while confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the 1st respondent herein, in issuing Occupancy Certificate in Form III in favour of the appellant herein. The main contention of the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that no notice was issued to them before issuing the Occupancy Right Certificate (O.R.C) in favour of the appellant- respondent No.2. The learned Single Judge taking into account the fact that the unofficial respondents-writ petitioners were not made parties to the proceedings and also the fact that no notices were served on them before granting of occupancy right certificate in favour of the appellant- respondent No.2, allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the original authority – R.D.O., for fresh consideration. Hence, the appellant-respondent No.2 preferred the present appeal. Sri P. Venkataswamy, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that there is no need for the learned single judge to remand the matter to the original authority as the order of the Joint Collector clearly states that notice has been issued by the R.D.O. in Form II calling objections and no such objections were received by him. Hence, he states that the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order. On the other hand, Sri V. Tulasi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents-writ petitioners would support the impugned order of the learned single judge and state that the same does not require any interference. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of the learned single judge. On a perusal of the Form-III bearing No.L 4988/99, dated –01-99 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella,(which is appended at page No.18 of the material papers filed along with the writ petition), it is seen that the copy of Form – III, granting ORC in favour of the appellant was not marked to all the parties concerned, including the unofficial respondents-writ petitioners herein. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was right in remanding the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District, the 1st respondent herein, for fresh consideration. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge, impugned in this appeal. However, we make it clear that the Revenue Divisional Officer shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 28th July, 2009 _________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J pnb/ghn