IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 15918 of 2008 Between: P. Venkat Ram Reddy S/o. P. Laxma Reddy R/o. 1-11-35, Near Water Tank, Alwal, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Tahsildar, Kandhukur Mandal, R.R. District. .....RESPONDENT 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 writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions declaring that the action of the respondent in not considering and processing petitioner's application dt. 19-9-2007 for mutation and consequential issue of patta Pass Book and Title Deed in Respect land in SY.No.60 and 128 admeasuring Ac 4-00 situated at Pulimamidi Village, Kandukur Mandal, and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VIJAY B.PAROPAKARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.15918 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner states that he made an application dated 19.09.2007 requesting the respondent-Tahsildar, Kandhukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to mutate his name in the revenue records and issue pattadar pass book and title deed book in his favour in respect of the land in question but so far no action thereon had been taken. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent, on instructions, submits that after considering the application dated 19.09.2007 made by the petitioner, the respondent by memo bearing No.B2/4095/2007 dated 17.01.2008 rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that patta cannot be mutated in his favour since the name of the vendor did not exist in pahanis and no original documents were produced. Admittedly, an order of rejection is passed by the respondent against the petitioner on the premise that the name of the vendor does not exist in the pahanis produced by him and that he failed to produce the original documents when he was directed to produce. Since the application dated 19.09.2007 of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent by memo bearing No.B2/4095/2007 dated 17.01.2008, he has to challenge the said memo, if he is so advised. In the circumstances, this Court cannot issue any directions to the respondent, much less as prayed for in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J. Date: 24.07.2008 VGSR