THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9540 OF 2006 DATED 02ND FEBRUARY, 2007 Between N.Bala Krishna Swamy … Petitioner AND The Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar District, at Mahaboobnagar and others. .… Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9540 OF 2006 ORDER: The petitioners purchased land admeasuring Acs.29.13 guntas in survey Nos.243, 250 to 253 and 259 situated at Mogiligidda Revenue village of Farooqnagar Mandal in Mahaboobnagar District from Kandivanama Buggaiah under registered sale deed, dated 19.05.1982. They allege that by that time, their vendor obtained ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (the Tenancy Act, for brevity). Nonetheless, respondents 3 to 5 herein ﬁled a revision petition under Section 9 of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 before the ﬁrst respondent seeking implementation of the ownership certiﬁcate under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act to Buggaiah. While taking the revision petition on ﬁle, ﬁrst respondent directed second respondent to implement the orders after verifying the revenue records and also directed the matter to be listed on 06.06.2006. As the second respondent initiated action for implementing the orders of the ﬁrst respondent, dated 16.04.2006, this writ petition is filed assailing the said orders. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 25.05.2006, passed orders suspended the impugned order in W.P.M.P.No.12094 of 2006. The contesting respondents now ﬁled W.V.M.P.No.1142 of 2006. As the controversy is short, the writ petition itself is being heard ﬁnally and is disposed of with the consent of the parties. In the counter aﬃdavit, respondents 3 to 5 alleged that the ownership certiﬁcate under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act issued to Buggaiah was subsequently modiﬁed by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Mahaboobnagar by order, dated 02.02.1984 and that the ﬁrst petitioner herein is the party to the proceedings and therefore, he cannot have any objection that the certificate under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act is implemented. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5, who reiterated their position as taken in the pleadings, one thing becomes very clear whether the certiﬁcate under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act is issued on 07.01.1976 or on 02.02.1984. There was considerable delay on the part of respondents 3 to 5 in approaching the ﬁrst respondent for implementation. In such an event, granting ex parte order directing the second respondent to implement the ownership certiﬁcate is unreasonable and improper. Secondly, no notice was issued to the petitioners herein, though they were shown as parties to the revision petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of setting aside the impugned order. The ﬁrst respondent is directed to dispose of the main revision petition itself within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till then, there shall be status quo. No costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) 02.02.2007. pln