THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No :2652 of 2008 DATED:12-02-2008 BETWEEN: K.Narsinga Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND The Staste of A.P., Rep., by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 8 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Revenue; and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the 3rd respondent in passing orders on the dispute remanded by the 2nd respondent vide File No.F2/1959/98, dated 23-04-2001, as illegal, and arbitrary. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that one Pedda Ramini Balaiah and others, including the petitioner herein, filed an appeal under Section 90 of the A.P.(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act ( for brevity, ‘the Act’) before the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, Rangareddy District, aggrieved by the issuance of the ownership certificate by the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Reforms), Hyderabad under Section 38-E of the Act vide certificate, dated 15-05-1975, in proceedings No.LRW/205/1975 in favour of certain persons and the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, Rangareddy District vide his proceedings No.F2/1959/98, dated 23-04-2001, remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella to conduct De nova enquiry to protect the real tenants of the subject-matter of the land of Ac.5.00 in Sy.No.69 of Miyapur village by giving reasonable opportunity to all the concerned. The other extent of Ac.19.14 guntas in Sy.No.69 of Miyapur village was declared as poramboke land. The 3rd respondent was directed not to entertain any claim with regard to the Government land and accordingly while vacating the earlier interim stay order, remanded the matter. The only grievance of the petitioner is that though the matter was remanded by the 2nd respondent as early as on 23-04-2001 the 3rd respondent is not conducting enquiry and not disposing of the same. 4. I am not inclined to express any opinion whether the 3rd respondent has completed the enquiry and whether he has passed any orders or not, but however if the 3rd respondent has not conducted de nova enquiry and not passed any final order pursuant to the terms and conditions of the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 23-04-2001, in proceedings No.F2/1959/98, 3rd respondent is directed to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving reasonable opportunity to all the concerned as directed by the 2nd respondent. 5. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 12th February, 2008. Tsy