THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WP NO.18154 OF 2011 ORDER This writ petition has been instituted calling in question the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District-the first respondent herein on 9th June, 2011. The respondents 3 and 4 herein appeared to have moved an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy, calling in question an order said to have been passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Wanaparthy on 20-12-2006. The appellants have also prayed for keeping the pahani for the year 2010-2011 in abeyance till the completion of the detailed enquiry in the matter. Entertaining the appeal, the Revenue Divisional Officer appears to have made an endorsement, as could be seen from page 13 of the paper book in this case, which reads as under: “Heard the counsel. Perused the record. Stay granted.” That order was communicated to the petitioner through proceedings dated 9th June, 2011 of the Revenue Divisional Officer posting the case for further consideration to 18th June, 2011. Heard Sri Seetharam Chaparla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel would submit that pursuant to an application submitted by the petitioner herein along with the 3rd respondent, the Mandal Revenue Officer has passed orders on 2012-2006 regarding the correction of entries in the revenue record over a land of an extent of Ac.1-08 guntas situate in Sy.No.1131 of Wanaparthy Village. He has also passed a similar order on the same day with regard to another piece of land of Ac.3.15 guntas in Sy.No.1131 of the same village. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner after nearly four and half years time, the appeal petition preferred by the respondents 3 and 4 herein ought not to have been entertained by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Further, an unregistered document is what is sought to be relied upon by the respondents 3 and 4 in the said appeal. In terms of Rule 9 of the Rules framed under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, no un- registered document ought to have been entertained by the Revenue Divisional Officer. I am afraid that I cannot deal with both these contentions at this stage of the matter. What has been passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer is a mere ex- parte interim order in terms of prayer three found in the appeal said to have been preferred by the petitioners, which is placed at page 15 of this paper book. The appellants as an interim measure prayed for an order for keeping the pahani for the year 2010-11 in abeyance. From the endorsement of the Revenue Divisional Officer, which is quoted supra, I gather that what the Revenue Divisional Officer granted was relating to prayer three which is found at page 15 of this paper book. Therefore, whether the Revenue Divisional Officer has properly assessed the balance of convenience in the matter of not preparing or furnishing the pahani for the year 2010-11 alone can be addressed at this stage but not the merits or lack of it in the appeal preferred by the respondents 3 and 4. Whether the appeal carries any merit therein or not is a matter which may be considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer at a later stage. An ex parte interim order, can also be asked to be vacated by a party to a lis, if he can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the competent authority that such an order would tilt the balance only in favour of one party to the lis instead of balancing the competing interests of both the parties. I, therefore, do not see any justifiable reason to entertain this writ petition, which is directed against an ex parte interim order of keeping in abeyance a pahani, which is prepared for the year 2011-2011. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. It is made abundantly clear that the order now passed does not bear any reflection on the tenability or the lack of it of the case of the petitioner herein and therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer will deal with the matter pending before him strictly in accordance with law un-influenced by any of the observations found herein. ______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J rkk Dated: 30-6-2011