IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.25595 of 2008 Between: Smt.B.Laxmi W/o. Late Basavaiah, Harijan C/o.D.G.S.K.M.N.V.Prasad Central Excise Colony, Plot No.121, Near Shiridi Saibaba Temple Sathrampadu, Eluru W.G District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andra Pradesh rep.by its Secretary For Revenue Secretariat Buldings, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector West Godavari District Eluru. 3 The Tahasildar Pedavegi (V) Pedavegi (M) W.G 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 direction order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 1st respondent in not finalizing either the stay petition or appeal field by the petitioner herein even after one year is illegal arbitrary erroneous and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to finalize the Revision filed by the petitioner forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.Y.V.RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.25595 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner states that her husband, an ex-service man, was assigned land admeasuring Acs.4.33 cents in Survey No.998 of Pedavegi Village and Mandal, West Godavari District, in the year 1975. The third respondent cancelled the patta through proceeding dated 30.08.1990. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner through order dated 27.12.1991. However, the Joint Collector, West Godavari District, the second respondent herein, reversed the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer vide proceedings dated 25.04.1994. The petitioner claims to have filed a revision before the first respondent against the order of the second respondent. Her grievance is that the revision has not yet been disposed of. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. Though the petitioner furnished the dates of the proceedings, the copies thereof are not filed along with the Writ affidavit. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is an old woman of 70 years age, this Court is of the opinion that she can be permitted to submit the copies of revision and other proceedings before the first respondent afresh along with the copy of the order in this Writ Petition and the first respondent be required to dispose of the same. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that (a) It shall be open to the petitioner to present a copy of the revision filed by her against the order of the second respondent dated 25.04.1994 and other relevant papers, along with the copy of this order before the first respondent; and (b) The first respondent shall dispose of the revision within a period of three {3} months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, from the petitioner. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 12th February 2009 RRB