IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23622 of 2003 Between: 1 Syed Jamaluddin Ali Khan S/o. Late Nazab Aziz Nawaz Jung R/o. 5-10-196, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad. 2 Md. Zainulabideen S/o. Late Nawab Aziz Jung R/o. 5-10-196, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad. 3 Hidayathunnisa Begum W/o.Late Liaquat Ali Khan R/o. 5-10-196, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad. 4 Khamrunnisa Khan W/o.Mr. Mahfooz Ali Khan R/o. Lake View Apartments, Road No.11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Principal Secretary [Revenue] State of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Survey, Settlement & Land Records, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The Collector, RangaReddy District Lakadi-ka-pool, Hyderabad. 4 The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District Lakadi-ka- pool,Hyderabad. 5 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nampally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.A.NARASIMHA RAO For MR.FAZALYOUSUFFUDIN Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Heard Sri A.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing the respondents. The pleadings in the case show that the case has got chequered career. In the view I am taking, it is not necessary to refer all the facts. It would suffice to note that by order, dated 17.01.1981, respondent No.2 remanded the case to respondent No.3 with the direction to him to dispose of the case within three (3) months from the date of receipt of the order and he further directed the District Revenue Officer to decide the matter regarding correction of settlement errors within a period of three months. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite long lapse of time, neither respondent No.3 nor the District Revenue Officer concerned disposed of the case. No counter-affidavit has been filed. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue stated that he does not have the information whether the above-mentioned order of respondent No.2 was given effect to. Since the writ petition is of the year 2003, I am not inclined to adjourn the case any further. Instead, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.3 to finally dispose of the case if not already done in terms of order, dated 17.01.1981 passed by respondent No.2 within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.3 shall also ensure that the District Revenue Officer concerned carries out the part of obligation placed on him by respondent No.2 in his order, dated 17.01.1981 within the above-mentioned period as well. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.29666 of 2003 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th June, 2008. kvni