THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.25537 of 2011 ORDER: Questioning the action of the Joint Collector, Madanapalle, Chittoor District (first respondent), in not even numbering/hearing/disposing of the interlocutory petition filed along with the revision, the present Writ Petition is filed. The petitioner claims to have been granted DKT patta on 10.08.1986 for an extent of Ac.2.73 cents in Sy.No.547 of Valasapalle Village, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District. It is his grievance that on 30.10.2001 the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Madanapalle, without even cancelling the assignment granted in his favour, again assigned the aforesaid land to the fourth respondent, and issued pattadar pass books in his favour. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent who, by order dated 27.08.2009, granted stay pending disposal of the appeal. The second respondent, by order dated 08.12.2010, while disposing of the appeal directed the Tahsildar, Madanapalle (third respondent) to conduct fresh enquiry into the aspect of eligibility of the petitioner and the fourth respondent, and to maintain status quo till the enquiry was completed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision petition in January, 2011 and, in as much as the revision petition was not taken up for hearing, he has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court more so a notice dated 26.07.2011 was issued directing that an enquiry would be conducted afresh in pursuance of the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle (second respondent) dated 08.12.2010. When the matter came up on 13.09.2011, Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) sought time to obtain instructions. Today, the Learned Government Pleader states that the revision petition has already been numbered, it was posted for hearing on 03.09.2011 and, thereafter, has been adjourned to 15.10.2011 by the first respondent awaiting records from the second respondent. It defies reason that it would take a month and a half for the second respondent to forward the records to the first respondent in the very same town. The casual manner, in which the statutory appeals/revisions are dealt with, is not justifiable. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to direct the first respondent to summon the records from the second respondent forthwith, put both the petitioner and the fourth respondent on notice, given them an opportunity of being heard and, thereafter, pass final orders in the revision petition itself, in accordance with law, at the earliest in any event not later than four weeks from today. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:16.09.2011 Note:CC by 19.09.2011 bo usd