HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15760 of 2010 Date: 08.12.2010 Between : Sri Pakanati Raghava Reddy. …….Petitioner And The Sub Inspector of Police, Thorrur Mandal, Warangal District & others. …….Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15760 of 2010 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, seeking directions by way of mandamus, declaring the action of respondent No.1 in not implementing the order of the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, issued in Rc.No.B/206/2010, dated 26.06.2010. The petitioner and the 4th respondent are brothers and sons of one Late Sri B.Ananta Reddy. The said Ananta Reddy was owning a land admeasuring Ac.3.10 gts., covered by Sy.No.249 of Chinnavanga village of Thorruru Mandal in Warangal District. It is the case of the petitioner that after the death of their father, they have divided the land and an extent of Ac.1.16 gts. on Northern side has fallen to his share and an extent of Ac.1.34 gts. on Southern side has fallen to the share of respondent No.4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that inspite of the fact that he is the owner to an extent of Ac.1.16 gts. of land, the 4th respondent has tampered the revenue records and obtained pattadar pass book and title deed for the entire extent of land, including his share. It is submitted that when the matter is complained by way of application/appeal before the 3rd respondent, he issued instructions to the 2nd respondent, who in turn, has issued orders, dated 26.06.2010, directing both parties not to enter into the disputed land and not to plough it for agricultural operations. It is submitted that inspite of the same, the 4th respondent is trying to enter into the land and the 1st respondent is not taking any steps for implementation of the orders issued by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar. Although it is stated that the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent, against issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the 4th respondent, the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar is not empowered to pass any order, directing the parties not to enter into the lands. While it is open for the 3rd respondent to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, but at the same time, he has no authority to issue any directions with regard to possession, and the 2nd respondent is also not having any authority to direct the parties not to enter into the land. In that view of the matter, no direction can be granted as prayed for, to direct the 1st respondent to implement such an order passed by the Tahsildar. It is further pleaded by the learned counsel for petitioner that subsequently, a separate civil suit was filed by the 4th respondent and his application for injunction was also rejected, but in this writ petition, it is not necessary to record any finding whether the petitioner is in possession or the 4th respondent is in possession of the said land. It is open for the petitioner to seek his remedies in civil Court. As much as the order, dated 26.062010, itself is an order passed without any authority of law by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, no direction can be granted to the 1st respondent to enforce such an order. However, as it is stated that the appeal filed by the petitioner under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, is pending consideration before the 3rd respondent, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, with a direction to the 3rd respondent that if any such appeal filed by the petitioner is pending as on today, the same shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 8th December 2010 ajr