IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 27341 of 2009 Between: 1 M./s.Sree Harsha Constructions, rep by its Managing partner Mr.A.Venkatesh, S/o.A.Peeraiah R/o.Flat No.302, Franklin Villa, Street No.10 Tarnaka, Hyderabad 2 Munikuntla Laxmaiah S/o.Mallaiah R/o.Korremula village, Ghatkesar Mandal Ranga Reddy District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Spl.Gradfe Dy.Collector & RDO , East Division Malakunta, Hyderabad 2 The Tahsildar,Ghatakesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 3 Arshiya Akram w/o.Mohd.Zuber Akram R/o.H.No.2-3-759/1/4, Jetti Nagar, Golnaka Amberpet,Hyderabad .....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 issue an appropriate writ,order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the issuance of the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent in Case Nos.A2/2460/2009 and A2/2462/2009 dated 25.11.2009 pertaining to the proceedings of the Respondent No.2 in file Nos.B1/754/007 dated 23.7.2007 & B1/755/2007 dated 26.7.2007 in respect of lands bearing Sy.Nos.739 to 742 to an extent of Ac.40.25 gts situated at Korremula village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under rule 5(v) of the ROR Act, 1971 is without jurisdiction and as such void and void ab intio violative of principles of natural justice and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.S.TULASI DAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No.27341 of 2009 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the issuance of impugned proceedings by 1st respondent in Case Nos.A2/2460/2009 and A2/2462/2009 dated 25.11.2009 pertaining to the proceedings of respondent No.2 in File Nos. B1/754/2007 dated 23.7.2007 and B1/755/2007 dated 26.7.2007 in respect of the lands bearing S.Nos. 739 to 742 to an extent of Ac.40-25 guntas, situated at Korremula village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Rangareddy District under Rule 5(v) of the ROR Act, 1971 as without jurisdiction, void ab initio and violative of principles of natural justice. It appears, under the impugned order, interim suspension of operation of the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Ghatkesar Mandal in his File No.B1/754/2007 dated 23.7.2007 and B1/755/2007 dated 26.7.2007 in respect of land bearing S.Nos. 739 to 742 admeasuring Ac.40-25 guntas situated at Korremula village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Rangareddy District, was granted for a period of one month. Now, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said interim order was extended further also. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal after more than two years and he has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. This argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners may not stand the scrutiny of law. It is altogether a different thing to say that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and that the said appeal is not accompanied by a delay petition or that the appeal ought not to have been entertained after a period of two years. Further, the petitioners are also parties to the said appeal. Therefore, they have all the liberty to file all the objections available under the law and 1st respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer has to consider them, as per law, and pass appropriate orders. Under those circumstances, while dismissing the writ petition, the petitioners are permitted to file all the objections as available under the law, including the delay in filing the appeal and jurisdiction of 1st respondent in entertaining the appeal with such abnormal delay of more than two years etc. On filing such objections, the 1st respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, shall consider the same on their own merits and pass appropriate orders. However, it is desirable that the appeal be decided within a reasonable time. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 21-12-2009. MVB.