IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 19444 of 2008 Between: 1 Eluru Prakasam, S/o. Narayya, Kanuparthipadu Village, Nellore Mandal, Nellore District. 2 Chevireddi Srirupa, W/o. Ashok Reddy, Grampanchayat Kanuparthipadu Village, Nellore Mandal and District. 3 Chemudugunta Meerama, W/o. Kantha Rao, Kanuparthipadu Village, Nellore Mandal and District. 4 Puli Rama Devi, W/o. Sburamanyam, Kanuparthipadu Village, Nellore Mandal and District. 5 Tupakula Srinvasulu, S/o. Anakaiah, Kanuparthipadu Village, Nellore Mandal and District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Govt. of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore. 3 The Tahsildar, Nellore. 4 Dega Venkata Krishna reddy, S/o. Late Seshu Reddy, Plot No. 112, M.S.R. Nagar, 10th Cross Road, Nellore. 5 Dega China Srinivasulu Reddy, S/o. Late Seshu Reddy, Plot No. 112, M.S.R. Nagar, 10th Cross Road, Nellore. 6 Smt. Dega Venkata Rajani, W/o. D.C. Srinvasulu Reddy, Plot No. 112, M.S.R. Nagar, 10th Cross Road, Nellore. 7 Kore Malakondaiah, S/o. Late Malakondaiah, R/o. Door No. 7/235, Peddathota Rnaganayakulapeta, Nellore. 8 Pothuru Vamsikrishna, S/o. Jala Ramaiah, R/o. North Rajupalem Village, Kodavaluru Mandal, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 declare the order CCLA's Reg. No. VI/2003/2008 DT. 26-5-2008 Passed by the 1st respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary and unjust by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R:- This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a mandamus to declare the order dated 26.5.2008 passed by the 1st respondent-Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners assert that they are ryots and own certain extents of lands in S.Nos.141/1 and 143/1 situated in Kanuparthipadu village, Nellore Rural Mandal, Nellore District. While so, the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar, passed an order dated 7.12.2007 under Section 7(1) of A.P.(Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryothwari) Act, 1956 (for short “the Act”) granting ryotwari pattas in favour of unoﬃcial respondent Nos.4 to 8. Challenging the said order, the petitioners ﬁled a revision petition on 26.4.2008 before the 1st respondent-Chief Commissioner of Land Administration under Section 14(A) of the Act, and the 1st respondent by order dated 26.5.2008, while rejecting the revision petition, held that the petitioners, without exhausting the remedy of appeal before the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, have ﬁled this revision, and accordingly, directed them to ﬁle appeal before the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer. Now, the petitioners’ grievance is that though Section 14-A of the Act empowers revisional authority to call for and examine the records with respect to any proceeding of the Tahsildar, the 1 st respondent, who is the revisional authority, without exercising such a power, has passed the impugned order, rejecting the revision petition and directing the petitioners to ﬁle an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The petitioners further state that the 1st respondent passed the said order having regard to the fact certain other persons, namely Sri Savabhatla Venkata Subramanya Ravi Kumar and 13 others ﬁled appeals before the appellate authority and the same are pending. The petitioners state that they came to know that the said appeals were dismissed by the 2nd respondent vide orders dated 14.07.2008, and in view of that the petitioners state that no purpose would be served in the petitioner preferring appeal before the 2nd respondent, as their appeal would also be dismissed. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 submitted that since the petitioners have alternative remedy of appeal, the 1st respondent refused to entertain the revision ﬁled by the petitioners, and as such, no interference is called for with the impugned order. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the unoﬃcial respondents refuted the contention of the petitioners that the appeal ﬁled by third parties before the 2nd respondent, and passing of orders by the 2nd respondent, and as such, no purpose would be served in the petitioners ﬁling appeal before the 2nd respondent is not correct. He submitted that the appeal to which the petitioners are referring, was ﬁled under the provisions of the R.O.R. Act for cancellation of pattadar pass books and title deeds. Therefore, there can be no reason for the petitioners to bypass the remedy of appeal and prefer revision before the 1st respondent, who had rightly relegated the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal before the 2nd respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for oﬃcial respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for unoﬃcial respondent Nos. 4 to 8. Even though the counsel for the unoﬃcial respondents argued that the petitioners should be directed to prefer appeal, as directed by the 1st respondent, but having regard to the apprehension expressed by the petitioners that no purpose would be served if they are directed to prefer appeal because similar appeals were dismissed by the 2nd respondent, he agreed for disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: The impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is set aside. The revision ﬁled by the petitioners stands restored. The 1st respondent shall entertain the revision, and consider and dispose of the same on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners as well as the unoﬃcial respondents undertook that they will strictly adhere to the schedule to be ﬁxed by the 1st respondent for disposing of the revision and shall not take any adjournment, so as to enable the 1st respondent to dispose of the revision in time. Till the disposal of the revision by the 1st respondent, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by the parties. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ 30-09-2008 N.V.RAMANA, J bcj