IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 2523 of 2008 Between: V.Ramachandra Rao, S/o Musalaiah, r/o Flat No.101, Refcon Rajasoudha Apartments, Motinagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 Deputy Collector & Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendra Nagar Mandal. 3 Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, R.R.District. 4 Smt.Y.Sujatha, w/o Y.Ravindra Babu, 5 Y.Prathima, D/o Y.Ravindra Babu, Nos.4 & 5 are residents of Jammalapalem Village, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District. 6 Smt.R.Sridevi, W/o S.Krishna, R/o Flat No.205, Saikiran Deluxe Apartments, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. 7 Mohan Singh, s/o late Narayana Singh, 8 Kundan Singh, s/o late Narayana Singh, 9 Ashok Singh, S/o late Narayana Singh, 10 Ramesh Singh, s/o late Narayana Singh, 11 Gopal Singh, S/o Late Narayana Singh, Respodnents 7 to 11 are r/o Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District. 12 Smt.Saleema Fatima, D/o Gouse Moinuddin, r/o Somajiguda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the order of the third respondent in Case No.C/3480/2007 dated 2/2/2008 as bad, illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice as well as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently restore the order of the third respondent made in case No.C/1303/2007 to 1306/2007 dated 25/1/2008 and pending this relief suspend the operation of the order of the third respondent made in Case No.C/3480/2007 dated 2/2/2008 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass suchother and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 2523 of 2008 Order: Assailing the order dated 02.02.2008 passed by the 3rd respondent, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, R.R. District, keeping the orders passed by him on 25.01.2008 in abeyance, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the writ petition are - The petitioner claims to be owner of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.35 guntas in Survey Nos. 295/1 and 293/2 of Puppalguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 27.05.2005 from his vendors. Pursuant to the purchase, he made an application under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, requesting the 2nd respondent, namely the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal, to mutate his name in the revenue records and to issue pattadar passbook and title deeds in his favour in respect of the above said land, and the 2nd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, by proceedings dated 14.02.2006, mutated the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. Against the said proceedings, the unofficial respondents preferred appeals before the 3rd respondent, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, R.R. District, who by common order dated 25.01.2008, confirmed the orders passed by the 2nd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer. While the matter stood thus, at the instance of one Smt. Saleema Fathima, who sought to implead herself as party to the appeal proceedings, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, and the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, without issuing any notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, suo motu reopened the already concluded appeal proceedings, and kept the orders passed by him on 25.01.2008, in abeyance, vide the orders dated 02.02.2008, impugned in the present writ petition. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 08.02.2008, granted interim suspension of the impugned orders. Subsequently, the unofficial respondents filed vacate stay petition. Today, though the vacate stay petition is listed for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents, agreed for disposal of the writ petition itself. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, keeping his earlier order, passed in the appeal in abeyance, is without jurisdiction, in that he has no power to either re-open the already concluded appeal proceedings or recall the orders passed therein. He further submitted that the orders of the nature impugned in the writ petition can be passed only on the ground that the order passed is vitiated by reason of fraud played or perpetuated by a party to the proceedings. He thus submitted that the order dated 02.02.2008, passed by the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Lambadi Pedda Bhadru and others v. Mohd. Ali Hussain1. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondents fairly admitted that the impugned order dated 02.02.2008, passed by the 3rd respondent, is without jurisdiction. He, however, submitted that as against the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent, the unofficial respondents have availed the remedy of revision before the Joint Collector, and that because of the pendency of the writ petition before this Court, the revision proceedings are being deferred from time to time. Having regard to the admitted stand taken by both the counsel, I deem it appropriate to pass the following order: The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.02.2008, passed by the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer is set aside. Since the unofficial respondents are said to have already filed revision before the Joint Collector against the impugned order, the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, is directed to consider and dispose of the same and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, expeditiously. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 02.04.2008 Ksr/Nsr 1 2003 (4) ALD 673 (DB)