HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.5472 of 2008 Date: June 21, 2011 Between: Smt.Peddamalla Swaroopa, W/o.P.Yadaiah @ Yadagiri, aged about 41 years, Occ:housewife, R/o.H.No.2-167, Hydershakote village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and others … Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad and others ... Respondents Order: Petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Hyderabad, in entertaining the appeal of the third respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary and also question the order passed in the said appeal vide proceedings in Case No.C/4998/2007, dated 05-02-2008. The dispute in the present writ petition relates to a piece of land admeasuring Ac.2.00 guntas covered by Sy.No.156, situated at Chilkoor village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Originally, pattadar of the said land was late Sri Yadaiah alias P.Yadagiri, who is the husband of the first petitioner. After the death of the said Yadaiah, petitioners herein applied for succession; which was granted. Now, on the ground that the original pattadar has sold the said land to the fourth respondent herein and the same was suppressed; at the instance of the third respondent, second respondent has passed order dated 05-02-2008 in Case No.C/4998/2007 canceling the order dated 01-09-2007 granting succession and of pattadar pass books in favour of the first petitioner. As against the order dated 05-02-2008 passed by the second respondent, revision petition was filed by the petitioners under Section 9 of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’) on 16- 02-2008, before the first respondent-Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. When the revisional authority did not pass any order on the application for stay of the order of the second respondent dated 05-02-2008, this writ petition has been filed. This court, by order dated 14-03-2008 in WPMP No.7089 of 2008 suspended the impugned order dated 05-02-2008 and the said order has been continuing all along. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader, Revenue for respondents 1 to 3 and also Sri C.Kodandaram, learned counsel for the fourth respondent. It is the case of the petitioners that the second respondent had no authority to pass the impugned order as there was no application challenging the proceedings granting succession and pattadar pass books in their favour. It is submitted that the second respondent ought not to have entertained the appeal challenging the said proceedings showing the third respondent as the appellant. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent that succession was obtained by playing fraud and suppressing the sale of the land in question in favour of the fourth respondent during the lifetime of the original pattadar, i.e. late Sri Yadaiah alias P.Yadagiri. It is submitted that, earlier, proceedings were issued granting succession and pattadar passbooks on the misrepresentation of petitioners and subsequently impugned order is passed after conducting enquiry basing on the report of the third respondent. In this case, it is not in dispute that against the order of the second respondent dated 05-02-2008, petitioners have already filed a revision petition under Section 9 of the Act. In view of pendency of such revision, it is not desirable to record any finding on the validity or otherwise of the order dated 05-02-2008. Though it is the case of the petitioner that the order dated 05-02-2008 is passed basing on the report of the third respondent and there is no power conferred on the second respondent to take up the appeal suo motu, showing the third respondent as appellant, the same is a matter to be considered by the revisional authority. As much as the order dated 05-02-2008 has been suspended by this court as early as on 14-03-2008 and in view of pendency of revision before the first respondent, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the order dated 05-02-2008, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the first respondent-Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District-the revisional authority to pass appropriate orders on the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 05-02-2008 passed by the second respondent in Case No.C/4998/2007, within two months from today. It is needless to observe that both parties and counsel, if any, will be issued notice before taking up the matter for hearing. It is made clear that till appropriate orders are passed in the revision petition, order of this court dated 14-03-2008 passed in WPMP No.7089 of 2008, shall continue. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) June 21, 2011 N.B. C.C. in 4 days B.O. MRR