IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 10274 of 2008 Between: 1 E.Murali, S/o. E.Rangaiah, R/o. 3-3-4, Erragadda Colony, Hyderabad Village, Hyderabad. 2 E.Narasimha, S/o. E.Rangaiah, R/o. 3-3-33/2, Erragadda Colony, Hyderabad Village, Hyderabad. 3 E.Yadaiah, S/o. E.Rangaiah, R/o. 3-3-33/2, Erragadda Colony, Hyderabad Village, Hyderabad. 4 E.Darshan, S/o. Kistaiah, R/o.2-2-115, Upperpally Village, Ranga Reddy District. 5 E.Sriramulu, S/o. Kistaiah, R/o.2-2-115, Upperpally Village, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 Sri Sama Bhupal Reddy, S/o. Not known, R/o. Upperpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 5 Sri Adirala Yenakaiah, S/o. Not known, R/o. Upperpally Village, Ranga Reddy District. 6 Smt Adirala Shantamma, W/o. not known, R/o. Upperpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 7 Sri Adiral Chandraiah, W/o. not known, R/o. Upperpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitiones dated 24.05.2005 as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court in WP No.4331/2006 dated 7.3.2006 by implementing the order of this Hon'ble Court in WP No.4331/2006 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.E.MADAN MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 10274 of 2008 Order: By this writ petition, the petitioners seek to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider their representation dated 24.05.2005 as per the directions of this Court passed in W.P. No. 4331 of 2006, dated 07.03.2006. The petitioners state that the land in question is their ancestral property, that the names of their fathers is recorded in the pahanies as owners and possessors thereof from the year 1955-56 onwards. It is their case that when the 4th respondent herein, without any right or title over the land in question, got his name mutated in the pahanies, they made a representation dated 24.05.2005 requesting the respondent- authorities to conduct an enquiry into the matter and to rectify the entries in the revenue records including pahanis right from 1986 in respect of the lands in question. As no action thereon had been taken by the respondent-authorities, they filed W.P. No. 4331 of 2006, and this Court, by order dated 07.03.2006, disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, to complete the enquiry after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing the petitioners as well as other persons, whose names have been illegally entered into the possession column, and thereafter submit his report to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, and the above exercise should be completed within ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Now it is the grievance of the petitioners that despite specific directions of this Court to consider and dispose of the representation filed by them after giving opportunity of hearing to others, the respondent-authorities have not taken any action on their representation till date, and hence, they seek appropriate directions. The 4th respondent filed counter, inter alia, stating that he has purchased the land in question under un-registered sale deeds dated 08.08.1978 and 30.04.1988 respectively from one Adhiral Venkaiah @ Venkatesh, grandson of the original owner, namely Venka @ Venkatiah. Thereafter, he made application for regularization/validation of the said unregistered sale deeds, and the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, after conducting enquiry, has regularized the said unregistered sale deeds, by order dated 18.08.1994, and issued necessary pattadar passbooks and title deeds in his favour in respect of the lands in question. Thereafter, he states that they took appropriate permission from HUDA to convert the land in question into housing plots and thereafter developed the same into house plots. At that point of time, one D. Yadamma and others, filed appeal before the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, questioning the orders dated 18.08.1994, passed by the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the said D. Yadamma and others, filed revision petition before the Joint Collector, and the same is pending consideration. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the official respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for respondent No. 4, and having regard to the fact that the revision petition filed by one D. Yadamma and others is said to be pending consideration before the Joint Collector concerned, the counsel for the petitioners agreed for disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: The petitioners shall approach the Joint Collector concerned and file appropriate implead petition seeking to implead them as party-respondents in the revision petition, filed by D. Yadamma and others against the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, refusing to set aside the order dated 18.08.1994, passed by the 3rd respondent, regularizing the unregistered sale deeds. The Joint Collector concerned, having regard to the orders dated 07.03.2006 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 4331 of 2006, filed by the petitioners, shall implead the petitioners as party- respondents in the revision. Thereafter, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, including the implead petitioners, shall consider and dispose of the revision petition and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 18.07.2008 Nsr