THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.26291 of 2006 Dated:16th August, 2010 Between: Dasari Yadaiah ….Petitioner and 1. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheshwaram Mandal, R.R. District & Anr. …Respondents **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.26291 of 2006 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by Dasari Yadaiah seeking Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District-1st respondent on the enquiry under Section 4(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner of Ac.3.00 of land comprising Survey No.192/57 situated at Srinagar Village, having inherited the same from Dasari Rajaiah as his adopted son. Whileso, D.Venkatesh-2nd respondent made a representation to the 1st respondent on 14.03.1997 to declare him as successor and owner of the land held by late Dasari Rajaiah. After an elaborate enquiry, the 1st respondent issued a proceeding vide RRO No.D/850/97, dated 10.04.1997 and declared the petitioner as successor and owner of the land bearing Survey No.192/57 admeasuring Ac.3.00 cents. The 2nd respondent filed an appeal against the order dated 10.04.1997 before the Special Grade Deputy Collector-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, at Hyderabad. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 30.11.2002 vide No.A2/4654/97. Aggrieved by the said order, the 2nd respondent filed revision before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, at Hyderabad and the said revision came to be dismissed on 27.03.2004 vide Case No.D5/8939/2002. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed W.P.No.9279 of 2004 and obtained status quo order. The order of status quo has been vacated on 04.10.2004. The 2nd respondent, according to the petitioner, has been doing brick business in the said land. He made several complaints to the Station House Officer, Maheswaram to take action against the 2nd respondent. The petitioner filed a case in SR No.3599 of 2005 before the 1st respondent on 21.12.2005 in respect of the said land. The said application is stated to be pending. Hence, this Writ Petition. 3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 22.01.2007. 4. Despite the notice being served on the 2nd respondent, none appears on his behalf. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the 1st respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent, having failed in all the forums to secure orders in his favour, has been doing brick business in the said land and therefore, necessary direction is required to be given to the 1st respondent to conduct an enquiry on the business being carried out by the 2nd respondent. 7. The writ affidavit discloses that the 2nd respondent’s claim has not been accepted by the primary, the appellate and the reivisional authorities. If the petitioner has any grievance against the 2nd respondent with regard to possession of the land in question, he has to approach the civil Court and obtain necessary orders. So far as the 1st respondent is concerned, he cannot interfere with the civil disputes between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, since all the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent under the provisions of the A.P. Land Record of Rights and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1989, ended in favour of the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to work out his remedies against the 2nd respondent by approaching the civil Court. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:16th August, 2010. Note: Issue C.C. within three days. B/O cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.26291 of 2006 Dated:16th August, 2010