IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 12434 of 2009 Between: M.Lakshman Rao S/o.Venkaiah MP Palli(V) Charla(M) Khammam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector Khammam District at Khammam 2 The Sub Collector Bhadrachalam,Khammam District 3 The Tahsildar Charla(M) Khammam District 4 K.Rangamani W/o.Rangababu H.No.4-19-12 Vidyadharapuram,Vijayawada .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs order direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not disposing of the stay application filed by the petitioner in ROR Revision No 17209 of 2009 as illegal and arbitrary and to consequently direct the 1st respondent to forthwith grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order dt 29-4-2009 passed in RoR Appeal No 14/CHRL/2008 on the file of the 2nd respondent till the ROR Revision filed by petitioner is finally disposed of Award costs and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.H.SATISH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Writ Petition NO.12434 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER The writ petition is premature. In substance, the petitioner seeks a direction to the 1st respondent-revisional authority to forthwith grant a stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 29-04-2009 passed by the 2nd respondent in ROR Appeal No.14/CHRL/2008. The petitioner claims to be the owner of lands specified in para 2 of the writ petition, of a total extent of Ac.15.95 cents in M P Palli Village, Charla Mandal, Khammam District. The lands were acquired by the petitioner’s father and after his demise the petitioner inherited the property and his name is also stated to have been mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in his favour. The petitioner’s sister-the 4th respondent tried to interfere with the petitioner’s possession and thereupon the petitioner filed O.S.No.57 of 1996 before the court of Special Assistant Agent-cum-Mobile Court, Badrachalam for injunction. Interim injunction was granted and thereafter the suit was decreed on 29.10.1998. The petitioner’s mother who was living with him died in 2003. The 4th respondent is alleged to have fabricated a will allegedly executed by their mother in her favour and on the basis of such a will, filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act,1971 ( for short “the Act”). The 2nd respondent allowed the appeal by the 4th respondent, by the order dated.20.04.2009; cancelled the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in the petitioner’s favour and in favour of his mother; and further directed the 3rd respondent to examine the claim of the 4th respondent and pass orders. As a consequence of this order cancelling the pattadar passbooks and title deeds, the revenue records would now bear the name of the petitioner’s late father. This is the immediate grievance. Aggrieved by the order of the 2nd respondent dated.29-04-2009 the petitioner preferred a revision before the 1st respondent on 15.06.2009 along with an application for grant of interim orders. The revision was numbered as ROR No.17209/2009. Alleging that the 1st respondent has not yet passed orders on the interlocutory application, this writ petition was filed on 24- 06-2009 nine days after the institution of the revision. In the facts and circumstances of the case this writ petition is a frenzied litigation. The 1st respondent is a quasi-judicial authority who has other administrative functions as well. The revision by the petitioner was preferred a mere nine days prior to the institution of the writ petition. In the circumstances it would not be appropriate for this court to direct the 1st respondent to schedule the hearing of the revision or the interlocutory application therein expeditiously or forthwith. On the aforesaid analysis the writ petition must fail and is accordingly dismissed. The 4th respondent may consider expeditiously disposing of the interlocutory application in the petitioner’s revision. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 25th JUNE 2009 *TSNR