IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 4427 of 2008 Between: Mulla Sanavulla, S/o.Mulla Imam Sab, R/o.H.No.1/164 A, Imam Street, Yemmiganur Post, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector Kurnool, O/o The District Collector, Kurnool Dist., 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o the R.D.O., Adoni, 3 The Govt.,of Andhra Pradesh, rep by The Tahsildar, Yemmiganur, Kurnool 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of 3rd respondent in not conducting denovo enquiry as per the provisions of the A.P., Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act 1971 and rules made there under as per the proceedings Rc.E.113/2002 dt./19/11/2002 passed by the 2nd respondent and consider petitioner's representation dt.18-1-2008 and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to conduct the denovo enquiry by considering petitioner's representation as per proceedings Rc.E.113/2002 dt./19-11-2002 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: DR.S.ABDULLAH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: Aggrieved by the action of the 3rd respondent – Tahsildar, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District in not conducting de novo enquiry as per the proceedings in Rc.E.113/2002 dated 18.1.2008, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and the Rules made thereunder, the present writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and at their request the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. The petitioner claims to be the owner of an extent of Ac.2.65 cents of land in S.No.287/B/5 at Yemmiganur Village and Mandal having succeeded to the same through unregistered family partition deed dated 30.8.1977. His grievance is that though the 2nd respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni vide proceedings dated 19.11.2002 while canceling the pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the petitioner directed the 3rd respondent to conduct de novo enquiry afresh and issue pattadar passbooks to the rightful owners, the 3rd respondent has not conducted the de novo enquiry and passed orders so far. It is also stated that the petitioner has made a representation to the 3rd respondent in this regard, in vein. When the matter came up for admission on 3.3.2008, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue was directed to obtain instructions in the matter. Today, the learned Government Pleader submits that no instructions were received by him so far. But, however he submits that since it is stated that the petitioner has already made a representation to the authorities, the same may be directed to be disposed of. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to complete the de novo enquiry as directed by the 2nd respondent vide orders dated 19.11.2002 after issuing notice to all the concerned and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. N.V.RAMANA,J Dt.10.3.2008 Msv