IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 16701 of 2008 Between: Narala Kondala Rao, S/o. Satyam, R/o. Yerrapothavaram Village, Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry. 2 The Tahsildar, Rajahmundry Rural. 3 Grandi Aravindam, S/o. Satyanarayana Murthy, R/o. Innispet, Rajahumundry, East Godavari 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 order direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare action of the respondent 1 & 2 in not considering the objections raised by the Petitioners on 22-07-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of A.p. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act 1971 and consequentially direct the respondents 1 & 2 to consider the objections raised by the petitioner 22-07-2008 before issuing the pattadar pass book in favour of 3rd respondent in respect of land covered in R.S.No. 616 of Piddimgoyya Mandal, Rajahmundry Rural, East Godavari and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.R.K.AMERANDRA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 16701 of 2008 Order: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2-Tahsildar in not considering the objections raised by the petitioner on 22.07.2008 in the claim petition ﬁled by respondent No.3, seeking grant of pattadar passbook in respect of the land covered in R.S. No.616 of Piddimgoyya Mandal, Rajahmundry rural, East Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct respondent No.2-Tahsildar to consider the objections raised by the petitioner before issuing pattadar passbook in favour of respondent No.3 in respect of the land in question. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner is stated to have submitted his objections to respondent No.2-Tahsildar in the claim petition ﬁled by respondent No.3, very recently i.e., on 22.07.2008. Without even giving time for respondent No.2-Tahsildar to consider his objections, the petitioner has approached this Court and ﬁled the present writ petition on 31.07.2008. As on today there is no material to show that the objections raised by the petitioner before respondent No.2-Tahsildar, in the claim petition ﬁled by respondent No.3, are not going to be considered, and it is premature to say at this stage that respondent No.2-Tahsildar would not consider the objections raised by the petitioner. In the circumstances, no relief as sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition can be granted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 01.08.2008 Nsr