THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21971 of 2010 Date: 09.12.2010 Between: Aluri Srinivasa Rao ..... Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its District Collector, Machilipatnam and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 5: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent No. 6: Sri Ravi Kumar Tolety The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed assailing notice dated 25.08.2010 of respondent No.3, whereby he has directed the petitioner to be present in his office for enquiry on 06.09.2010 at 11.00 a.m. A perusal of the impugned notice shows that the same was issued to the petitioner on a representation. It has now come out that the said representation was made by respondent No.6 to whom a copy of the impugned notice was marked. The main ground on which the impugned notice has been assailed is that respondent No.3 is denuded of the jurisdiction to issue such a notice under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Ravi Kumar Tolety, learned counsel for respondent No.6, have fairly conceded that respondent No.3 has no power to hold an enquiry into the claims of any party for mutation of their names in the record of rights. The learned counsel for respondent No.6 has, however, submitted that as the application filed by his client before respondent No.4 has been kept pending without any action, he had to approach respondent No.3 for redressal of his grievance. In my opinion, even if this assertion is correct, respondent No.3 can at best request respondent No.4 to dispose of the application filed by respondent No.6, but he cannot embark upon an enquiry, which power is vested only in respondent No.4. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned notice dated 25.08.2010 is set aside. If the application of respondent No.6 filed before respondent No.4 for mutation is pending, respondent No.4 is directed to hold an enquiry and take an appropriate decision after following due procedure under Section 5 of the Act. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, interim stay granted by this Court on 03.09.2010 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.27952 of 2010 filed by the petitioner is for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 09th December, 2010 GHN