IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 9131 of 2008 Between: Vantari Ravi S/o.Munaswamy Naidu R/o.17-25, Panagal, Srikalahasthi, Srikalahasthi Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3 The Tahsildar, Srikalahasthi, Srikalahasthi Mandal, Chittoor District. 4 D.C.Munirathnam S/o.Chenchu Munaiah R/o.Panagal, Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District. 5 D.Chenchu Munaiah S/o.Chenchu Munaiah R/o.Panagal, Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District. 6 D.Venkaiah S/o.D.Chenchu Munaiah R/o.Penkalapadu village, Srikalahasthi Mandal, Chittoor District. .....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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not granting the interim relief pending revision, Roc.E10/12935/07, preferred against the orders of the 2nd respondent dt. 24.9.2007 in appeal No.674 of 2003 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of Act 26 of 1971 and consequently the respondents be directed not to enforce the orders dt. 24.9.2007 in Appeal No.674/2003 of the 2nd respondent, till the disposal of the revision, and to pass such other and further orders that may be deemed fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.V.MUNI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 9131 of 2008 22-04-2009 Oral Order: The singular grievance in this writ petition is that the 1st respondent to whom the petitioner had preferred a revision under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (Act No. 26 of 1971) (for short ‘the Act’) against the order of the 2nd respondent dated 24-09-2007 has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer issuing a pattadar passbook in favour of the non-official respondents herein, without considering the petitioner’s application for interlocutory relief pending the revision. The petitioner has also a substantive and effective remedy of having his title determined in regular proceedings before a civil Court of competent jurisdiction under Section 8 (2) of the Act. However, the petitioner has chosen to pursue the quasi judicial remedies before administrative authorities under the provisions of the Act by way of preferring appeal to the 2nd respondent and thereagainst a revision to the 1st respondent under Section 9 of the Act. Whether in the circumstances of the case an interim relief should be granted is a matter within the discretionary spectrum of the 1st respondent, a discretion which in the absence of any showing of perversity is not susceptible to the judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is disposed of. The 1st respondent is directed to dispose of the revision in Roc.No. E10/12935/07 preferred by the petitioner expeditiously and in any event within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner is aggrieved, the petitioner would be at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies before the appropriate civil Court of competent jurisdiction in terms of Section 8 (2) of the Act. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 22-04-2009 Pvks