IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22528 of 2002 Between: Sistla Vidya Sagar … Petitioner AND The Joint Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22528 of 2002 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 30.04.2002 passed by respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 filed a revision petition under Section 9 of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 against the order of respondent No.2 granting pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioner before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 disposed of the said revision by setting aside the said order of respondent No.2 and remanded the matter to respondent No.2 for fresh enquiry and disposal. In doing so, respondent No.1 took into consideration the fact that respondent No.2 failed to consider the objections raised by respondent No.3 before issuing pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioner. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while the petitioner cannot have any objection in principle to the remand of the case to respondent No.2, but he is aggrieved by the failure of respondent No.1 in mentioning his case in the order. In my considered opinion, irrespective of whether respondent No.1 indicated the case of the petitioner or not, when once the case is remanded to respondent No.2, he is bound to consider the grounds raised by the respective parties to the litigation. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for issuance of pattadar passbooks in respect of the land in question, after considering the objections of respondent No.3 and affording an opportunity of personal hearing to both the parties. He shall complete this exercise within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.Nos.28271 of 2002 and 19741 of 2003 and WVMP.No.935 of 2003 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 01.07.2008 ES