IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25649 of 2009 Between: C. Rajendra … Petitioner And The Govt., of A.P., rep., by the District Collector, Chittoor District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V. Jagapathi Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri D. Seshadri Naidu The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25649 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in calling for a fresh report in the petitioner’s appeal from the Tahsildar, Vadamalpet Mandal, Chittoor District, ignoring the earlier report dated 30.06.2008 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.5.19 cents in Society.No.349/3B, 3C, 3D and 3E situated in S.V.Puram Village accounts, Vadamalapet Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for transfer of the pending appeal from the file of respondent No.2 to any other Revenue Divisional Officer (for short, “RDO”) in Chittoor District. The necessity of adjudicating the writ petition on merits is obviated on account of the fair stand taken by Sri Seshadri Naidu, learned counsel for respondent No.4 that his client has no objection if the appeal, pending before respondent No.2, is transferred to any other RDO within the District. As the petitioner has serious apprehensions about the impartiality of the present incumbent holding the office of respondent No.2 and respondent No.4 has conceded to the prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition, the District Collector, Chittoor District, is directed to transfer the appeal filed by the petitioner to the RDO, Tirupati Division at Tirupati for adjudication on merits. As regards the prayer pertaining to respondent No.2 calling for report from respondent No.3, it has come to light that respondent No.2 has called for two reports on two different occasions from respondent No.3. While the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken exception to calling for a second report by respondent No.2, Sri Seshadri Naidu submitted that the very procedure adopted by respondent No.2 in calling for a report while exercising his appellate power in order to ascertain the possession of the parties is not permissible in law inasmuch as the appeal is pending before him. As the appeal is pending, I am not inclined to express my opinion on this aspect at this stage. The RDO to whom the appeal will be transferred shall consider the objections to be filed by both the parties regarding the power of respondent No.2 to call for reports and also on the findings contained in his two reports. He shall supply copies of both the reports to the petitioner and respondent No.4 and dispose of the appeal on merits, after considering the objections that may be filed by both the parties. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.33419 of 2009 and WVMP.Nos.742 and 1230 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 08.09.2010. ES