THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.280 OF 2002 O R D E R Aggrieved by the proceedings No.C/73/2001 dated 11.1.2001 passed by the 1st respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Rangareddy District in directing the petitioners not to alienate the land in Sy.Nos.92, 93, 96, 98, 113 and 119, admeasuring Acs.8-00 situate at Attapur village, Rajendranagar Mandal, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that the land to an extent of Acs.23-16 guntas situate at Sy.Nos.47,48, 49, 92, 93, 95, 96, 98, 113, 114, 119, 100 and 62 of Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, was partitioned among K.Janga Reddy, K.Yella Reddy and K.Raji Reddy, who are the real brothers, on 26.7.1969 and to that effect a written partition deed was also made and ever since, they are in possession. K.Jangareddy and K.Yella Reddy are the fathers of the petitioners 1 to 4 and 6 and respondents 2 to 4 are the children of Raji Reddy. After partition, they are in possession of the respective shares and they have also filed declarations under the Urban Land Ceilings Act and the Competent Authority and Special Officer Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad has granted exemption, holding that they have no excess lands. The Mandal Revenue Officer Rajendranagar, issued title deeds and pass books in favour of the petitioners 1 to 4, 6 and 7 and respondents after detailed enquiry with regard to their ownership and possession. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar also passed proceedings in Ref.No.ROR/67/89 dated 10.1.1990. Now the grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents 2 to 4 filed R.O.R. appeal in C/73/2001 before the 1st respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 5(5) of the R.O.R Act and the by the impugned order, the petitioners were directed not to alienate the land to third parties and the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer, were stayed. 3. The contention of the petitioners is that the 1st respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer entertained the appeal after a lapse of 11 years and granted directions. Their further contention is that the appeal is filed for rectification of the revenue records, but the 1st respondent assuming the jurisdiction of the civil court, granted interim directions, which are beyond his jurisdiction and hence sought to set aside the same. 4. No counter affidavit is filed. 5. The impugned orders are dated 11.1.2001 and this court while admitting the writ petition on 4.1.2001, did not grant any interim direction. Further there is no information before this court whether the proceedings are still pending before the 1st respondent. 6. Therefore, having regard to the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1st respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law, if the same is pending, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. AVS --------------------------- 24—04—2009