THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29831 of 2010 Date: 30.11.2010 Between: K.Narasimha Reddy and others ..... Petitioners AND The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar District and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to3: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside orders in proceedings No.E1/250/2008, dated 15.04.2008 and No.K/4338/2006, dated 15.04.2008, of respondent Nos.1 and 3 respectively. The petitioners’ applications for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) was rejected by respondent No.3. Feeling aggrieved by the said rejection order, the petitioners have filed an appeal under Section 24 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 before respondent No.2. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that the said appeal is pending before respondent No.2. During the pendency of this appeal, respondent Nos.1 and 3 have passed the impugned orders directing entering of names of respondent Nos.4 to 302 in the revenue record. Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, strenuously contended that the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 3 are vitiated by several legal errors and therefore, they cannot be sustained in law. Having carefully considered this submission of the learned counsel, I am of the opinion that as the petitioners’ appeal filed against the rejection of their application for grant of ORC is pending before respondent No.2, interests of justice would be served if the said appeal is disposed of. Once the appeal filed by the petitioners is decided by respondent No.2, the respective rights of the parties will get crystalised. Therefore, without going into the merits of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the validity of the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 3, the writ petition is disposed of a with a direction to respondent No.2 to dispose of the appeal bearing No.F-2/12/2008, pending on his file, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving notice and opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 302. It is made clear that respondent No.2 shall decide the appeal on its own merits without being guided or influenced by the impugned proceedings issued by respondent Nos.1 and 3 directing mutation of the names of respondent Nos.4 to 302. Needless to observe that the rights of the respective parties for mutation in the record of right shall depend upon the outcome of the appeal, pending before respondent No.2. Since the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, the Registry shall entertain the claim of the petitioners for refund of batta towards notices to be served on respondent Nos.4 to 302. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.38011 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dt.30.11.2010 VGB