THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 25284 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner approached the Tahsildar, the second respondent herein, with a prayer to enter his name in the revenue records concerning the land admeasuring Ac.1.24 guntas, in survey No.788 of Kistapur Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The second respondent rejected the application through order, dated 20.06.2003. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the third respondent herein. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the second respondent vide orders, dated 30.07.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the fifth respondent filed a revision under Section 9 of the Act before the Joint Collector, the fourth respondent herein. The revision was allowed, through the order, dated 18.10.2008. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel for the fifth respondent. The subject matter of the revision before the fourth respondent was an order, dated 30.07.2007, passed by the third respondent, through which he remanded the matter to the second respondent. It was specifically brought to the notice of the fourth respondent that on the basis of the orders, dated 30.07.2007, the second respondent has already taken up the matter afresh and passed an order, dated 07.06.2008, by filing a memo. The same was taken note of by the fourth respondent. Still, he proceeded to allow the revision. Another significant aspect is that feeling aggrieved by the order, dated 07.06.2008, passed by the second respondent, the fifth respondent preferred an appeal before the third respondent. Therefore, the whole exercise undertaken by the fourth respondent in passing the impugned order is redundant. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 18.10.2008, is set aside. The petitioner and the fifth respondent shall work out their remedies in the appeal pending before the third respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:29.01.2009 kdl