THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No.869 of 2008 ORDER: Heard both sides. The petitioner filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia assailing the order dated 29.10.2007 passed by the District Judge (Land Grabbing Tribunal), Nalgonda, in I.A.No.562 of 2007 in L.G.C.No.4 of 1997 rejecting the application purported to have been filed under Rule 6(1) of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules 1988 (for short ‘the Rules’) to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Suryapet, for local inspection, verification and for report. The case of the respondents is that even though the application has to be considered and processed as mandatory under Rule 6(1) of the Rules, yet the petitioner has not explained the delay properly. Therefore, there is no necessity for calling for such report from the Mandal Revenue Officer. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, and on going through the material available on record, it is evident that as the procedure as contemplated under the aforesaid Rules, the report is only a step for disposal of the main case for the purpose of clarification of claims and to set the revenue records by obtaining such reports from the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer. But that itself is not the conclusion to have a say on the merits of the case. The case has to be disposed of on merits and in accordance with law subject to parties establishing their respective cases dehors the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer. Under the circumstances, I see no justification in the application and the lower Court rightly dismissed the application. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ (B. PRAKASH RAO, J.) 24th June, 2010 Js.