IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 12396 of 2009 Between: Smt. Masrrath Jahan Begum, W/o. late Farhathullah Khan, R/o.H.No.16-9-687, Old Malakpet, Hyderabd rep by her GPA, Humayun SultanS/o. Sultan Ahmed, aged 56, Occ: Business, R/o. Malakpet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Joint Collector, Hyderabad, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabd. 2 K.Murali Mohan Rao, Rep by his GPA Sri G.Harinath Rao, S/o. Subbaraok, R/o. 12-2-716, Birbangagh, Hyderabad. .....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 an appropraite Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus dclairng the action of the 1st Respondent in not disposing of the appeal No.0/253/2005 or hearing the same as illegal, and arbitrary, violative of ARt.14 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the 2nd respondent against the orders passed by the Revenue Divisonal Officer, Hyderabad Division in case No.B/5308/2005 dated 18-3-2008, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.12396 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER The singular grievance in this writ petition is that the 1st respondent has not disposed of the appeal preferred in 2006 under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 read with Sections 90 and 92 of A.P. (T.A) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act,1950, against the order of the RDO, Hyderabad Division dated.18.03.2006. The learned Government Pleader has placed before this Court today the appellate order dated 07-01-2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that no notice of the hearing of the appeal was issued to the petitioner before the impugned order is passed and the petitioner was not even afforded an opportunity to be present to advance his arguments in the appeal. As the appeal has been disposed of by the 1st respondent by order dated.07-01-2009, however defectively as is alleged, the petitioner is required to question the order on what-ever grounds advised. As the substantive grievance in this case no longer subsists, there is no need for proceeding further in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies against the 1st respondent’s order bearing No.B2/2765/2006, dated 07-01-2009. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 9th JULY 2009 *TSNR