IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 14032 of 2009 Between: Smt.V.Vijaya Gandhi W/o.VRM Gandhi R/o.Plot No.16, Vijayapuri Housing Colony Kapra village & Municipality, Keesara Mandal Ranga Reddy District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Revenue officer, Keesara Mandal Keesara , R.R.District 2 Shri R.Venkatesh Goud S/o.late Sathyanarayana R/o.Plot No.15, Vijaya puri Housing Colony Kapra village & Municipality, Keesara Mandal R.R.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 of mandamus or any other writ or direction in the nature of writ directing the respondent No.1 to submit a report under Rule 6 of the AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition ) Rules, 1988 in LGC.SR.No.7651/2005 on the file of the Honble District Judge cum Chairman , Special Tribunal under AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, R.R.District at NTR Nagar, forthwith and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.S.VANI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed): This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus directing the first respondent to submit his report under Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988 (for short “the Rules”), in LGC (SR) No.7651 of 2005 on the file of the District Judge-cum-Chairman, Special Tribunal under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short “the Act”). The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner of Plot No.16, admeasuring 250 square yards in Survey Nos. 502 and 503, situated at Vijayapuri Housing Colony, Kapra Village of Keesara Mandal in Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same from its original owner under a registered sale deed, bearing document No.1563 of 1991, dated 03.04.1991. Her grievance is that the 2nd respondent herein, who was the owner of the adjoining plot i.e. Plot No.15 in the same survey numbers, has grabbed 25 square yards of her land. Against the said action of 2nd respondent, she has filed LGC (SR) No.7651 of 2005 on 18.07.2005, before the District Judge-cum-Chairman, Special Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District, and the same is pending for want of report from 1st respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, which is a mandatory requirement under Rule 6 of the Rules. The 1st respondent, even after grant of 23 adjournments between 01.09.2005 and 12.02.2009, has failed to discharge his statutory obligation and failed to submit his report, and thus, involved with the administration of justice. On the last occasion i.e. on 15.07.2009, we have directed the 1st respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer to be present in the Court today, so as to explain as to what is the reason for not submitting the report. Today, he is present before the Court and stated that the report is already submitted. In the counter-affidavit filed by him, it is stated that the District Judge-cum-Chairman, Special Tribunal under the Act, Ranga Reddy District, has referred the matter to the then Mandal Revenue Officer, to submit a detailed report, and because of heavy workload i.e. updating the voters list in view of General Elections, issuing ration cards etc., the report was not submitted in time by his predecessor. But, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, he has submitted the detailed report to the Chairman, Special Tribunal- cum-District Judge, Ranga Reddy, on 17.07.2009. We are not satisfied with the explanation offered by the 1st respondent. The matter is kept pending for a substantial period of five years before the Special Tribunal, and despite granting 23 adjournments so as to enable the Mandal Revenue Officer to furnish his report, as contemplated under Rule 6 of the Rules, he failed to perform the statutory duty cast upon him by the Act, and thus, involved with the administration of justice, which has prevented the Tribunal in not disposing of the case in LGC (SR) No.7651 of 2005. In these circumstances, since the report is already submitted, nothing survives in this writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. However, we express our dissatisfaction on the conduct of the Mandal Revenue Officer in not submitting the report in time. The Mandal Revenue Officer, who is present today before this Court, submitted that he has succeeded to his predecessor-in-office, recently. Hence, we direct the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, to identify the Mandal Revenue Officer, who was responsible for the delay caused in furnishing the report to the District Judge, and take appropriate action against him. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J Dated 20th July, 2009 ___________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J vrn