THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.19546 OF 2009 DATED: 16.09.2009 Between: Dhangari @ Sulige Vittal and others .. Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, and others. .. Respondents ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 3. Petitioners claim to have succeeded to the land admeasuring Ac.1.19 gts. in Sy.No.195 of Upparapally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal of Ranga Reddy District, from the original owner D. Balaiah, who is the father of the 1st petitioner and grandfather of petitioners 2 and 3. It is their case that, after the death of the original owner, the 3rd respondent- Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal, having conducted a detailed enquiry, ordered for incorporation of the names of the 1st petitioner and the father of petitioners 2 and 3 in the revenue records pertaining to the subject land, by proceedings dated 28.02.1998. Thereafter, in the year 2006, when the 1st petitioner and father of petitioners 2 and 3 requested the 3rd respondent for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the subject land, the respondents 4 to 8 raised objections, claiming rights in the subject land, and thereupon the 3rd respondent, vide memo dated 05.08.2006, advised the parties to approach the competent Civil Court for resolving the title dispute between them. Questioning the said memo dated 05.08.2006 as well as the earlier proceedings dated 28.02.1998 of the 3rd respondent, the respondents 4 to 8 preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, under Section 5 (5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), and the 2nd respondent, having enquired into the matter, found that the name of D.Balaiah was wrongly recorded in the revenue records without any order of competent authority and, accordingly, by his order dated 04.04.2007, set aside the entries in the revenue records made in favour of D. Balaiah from 1997-98 onwards, and restored the old entries, and also set aside the proceedings dated 28.02.1998 and memo dated 05.08.2006 of the 3rd respondent and remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent for fresh enquiry and disposal within three months, by giving opportunity to all the concerned parties. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st petitioner and father of petitioners 2 and 3 preferred a revision before the 1st respondent- Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, under Section 9 of the Act, and obtained an order of status quo until further orders. Further, in view of the death of the father of petitioners 2 and 3 during the pendency of the said revision, the petitioners 2 and 3 have filed an application before the 1st respondent to permit them to come on record as his legal representatives. While so, now the grievance of the petitioners is that, in spite of the status quo order, the respondents 4 to 8 managed to change the entries in the revenue records pertaining to the subject land as per the orders of the 2nd respondent, and, taking advantage of the same, they have been trying to alienate the subject land in favour of third parties. Therefore, the petitioners seek appropriate directions to the 1st respondent for disposal of their revision petition pending before him. In the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, the 1st respondent is directed to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioners, against the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 04.04.2007, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 16th September, 2009. IBL