IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 23300 of 2008 Between: Lekkala Mallikarjuna Rao S/o.Chinna Masthan Naidu R/o.Saguturu village,Ozili Mandal Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of Sub Collector, Gudur, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District 2 Guntamadugu Subba Raju S/o.Venkata Raju R/o.Gurramkonda village Ozili Mandal, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ or direction or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the notice dated 26.9.2008 issued by the 1st respondent as without jurisdiction illegal, and arbitrary, and in violation of Articles, 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and provisions of Andhra Pradesh Pattadar Pass Book Act,1971 and consequently to set aside the said notice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.VENKATA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner challenging the notice dated 26.9.2008 issued by the 1st respondent – Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Gudur on the ground that the same is passed without any jurisdiction. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and at their request the writ petition itself is taken up for ﬁnal disposal at the admission stage. The petitioner claims that his family has ancestral lands situated at Saguturu Village of Ozili Mandal and after partition, the petitioner and his brother got some of the lands shown in the impugned notice for which pattadar pass books were also issued. While the matters stood thus, pursuant to the notice issued by the 1st respondent in regard to the claim of the 2nd respondent for grant of pattadar pass books, an enquiry was conducted. It is stated that to the said notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the application ﬁled by the 2nd respondent and conduct an enquiry and that the Tahsildar alone is entitled to issue pattadar pass books under Section 6-A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). The only apprehension of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent may not consider his explanation and will proceed against him. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has already submitted his explanation to the show cause notice issued by the 1st respondent, there is no necessity now to suspend the notice issued by the 1st respondent. Since the 1st respondent has already received the explanation submitted by the petitioner, it is expected that he will consider the explanation and will pass appropriate orders. The writ petition is premature and it is accordingly dismissed. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.06.11.2008 msv