IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13860 of 2008 Between: P. Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o. Late Pedda Ramaiah, R/o. Mangapatnam Village, Sodanapalli Village of Narpala Mandal, Anantapur. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector & Addl. District Magistate, Anantapur A.P. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Narpala Mandal, Anantapur District. 4 The Station House Officer, Narpala Mandal, Anantapur District. 5 P. Sreerami Reddy, S/o. Pedda Ramaiah, R/o. Sodanapalli Village, Narpala Mandal, Anantapur. 6 Smt. P. Obulamma, w/o. Chinna Ramaiah, R/o. Sodanapalli Village, Narpala Mandal, Anantapur Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:M/S.C.KODANDA RAM Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to hear and dispose of revision petition bearing R.C.No.D4/2795/2005, dated 09.05.2005 expeditiously. Heard Sri Challa Kodanda Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 3. In the view I am taking, notices need not be served on respondent Nos.5 and 6. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6 are closely related with each other and that family disputes among them have been in existence for a long time. He also submitted that against order, dated 31.08.2002 passed by respondent No.3 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.2 and the said appeal was dismissed by him by order, dated 02.04.2005 and that the petitioner filed a revision petition on 09.05.2005 before respondent No.1. The learned counsel further submitted that having entertained the revision petition, respondent No.1 has not passed an order of stay in favour of the petitioner and that though the revision petition is pending for more than three (3) years, respondent No.1 has not disposed of the same, resulting in lot of unrest between the petitioner on the one side and respondent Nos.5 and 6 on the other. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue stated that having regard to the nature of innocuous relief claimed by the petitioner, respondent No.1 will not have any objection for an early disposal of the revision petition. Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of. Respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after notice to the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.17894 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NARAGJUNA REDDY, J 1st JULY, 2008. kvni