IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 18959 of 2008 Between: P. Narayana Reddy, s/o. Venkat Reddy, R/o. at Patarlapad, Thirumalayapalem Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretarty, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector, Khammam. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam. 4 P. Ranga Reddy, S/o. Ramachandrareddy, R/o. at Pataralapad, Thirumalayapalem Mandal, Khammam 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, in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent i.e. Revisional in not disposing of the interim application ﬁled along with the Revision even numbering of the Revision, Adjourning the matter from time to time Viz., 2-8-08, 16-8-2008, 23-8-2008, 30-8-2008 and adjourning the matter to 6-9-2008 amounts to declining to exercise the jurisdiction conferred under Section 9 of the R.O.R. Act. Counsel for the Petitioner: MRSYED SHAREEF AHMED Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and at their request the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. Even though the writ petition is ﬁled questioning the action of the 3rd respondent – Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer in disposing of the interim application ﬁled by the petitioner along with the revision, at the time of hearing of the writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that against the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer dated 7.7.2008, a revision petition is ﬁled before the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector and, therefore, a direction may be given to the Joint Collector to dispose of the said revision petition, for which the learned counsel for the caveator has also no objection. It is also stated that the case is posted for hearing before the Joint Collector on 18.10.2008 In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector is directed to consider and dispose of the revision petition ﬁled by the petitioner against the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer on 18.10.2008 itself, to which date the case is stated to have been posted, without any further adjournments. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.10.09.2008 msv