IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 8086 of 2008 Between: 1 Dr. Amarkanth Raj Saxena, S/o. late Sri Giridhar Raj Saxena, R/o. M160, Eagle RockLance, Montclari, New Jersey, USA, Temporarily residing at H.No. B-74, Steek Mines Complex, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. 2 Dileep Raj Saxena, S/o. late Sri Giridhar Raj Saxena, R/o. Plot N.19, Snow Dlift Lane, Howalli, New Jersey, U.S.A. 3 Ashok Raj Saxena, S/o. late Sri Giridhar Raj Saxena, R/o. 6451, Pleiffer Roawn, Court Sanjose, U.S.A. Petitioner 1 to 3 are represented by their G.P.A. Holder P. Madhusudhan Reddy Pasham,S/o. late P. Ranga Reddy, aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 18-108, Road No.5, Kamalanagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of A.P., Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 Mandali Ramaiah, S/o. Buggaiah, R/o. Dabeelguda Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 5 Mandali Narasimhulu, S/o. Buggaiah, R/o. Dabeelguda Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 6 Mandali Chennaiah, S/o. Buggaiah, R/o. Dabeelguda Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy 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 more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 2nd respondent in seeking to dispose of the Appeal No. A2/2826 of 2007 without deciding the interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner for summoning of files and for impleadment as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to decide the interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.SRINIVAS DAMMALAPATI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioners stating that the 2nd respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District is seeking to dispose of Appeal No. A2/2826 of 2007 filed by them against the orders of the 3rd respondent - Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheshwaram Mandal without deciding the interlocutory applications filed by them for summoning of files and for impleadment Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri S.Srinivas Reddy for respondents 4 to 6 and at their request the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. The case of the petitioners is that their father Sri Giridhar Raj Saxena was the absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural lands in Sy.Nos.318, 319, 320, 322, 323, 324 admeasuring an extent of Ac.32.29 guntas situated in Maheswaram Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and after his death the petitioners succeeded to the said property. While so, respondents 4 to 6 have made an application to the 3rd respondent to mutate their names in the revenue records in respect of the said property stating that they purchased the said land from the father of the petitioner under a registered sale deed on 15.2.1972 and by proceedings dated 21.1.2006 of the 3rd respondent, their names were mutated. Aggrieved by the said orders, it is stated that the petitioners preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent and by proceedings dated 2.7.2007, the 2nd respondent granted interim suspension of the orders of the 3rd respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is that on 1.9.2007 on the application made by the petitioners, the 2nd respondent directed respondents 4 to 6 to produce the original agreement of sale dated 15.2.1972 and the said document is not produced by the unofficial respondents so far. The petitioners are also stated to have filed interlocutory applications seeking summoning of tenancy court records on the file of the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer and another application seeking impleadment of the subsequent purchasers as parties to the appeal. The grievance of the petitioners is that without even disposing of the interlocutory applications filed by them and respondents 4 to 6 producing the original agreement of sale, the 2nd respondent is trying to dispose of the appeal, which will adversely affect their interest. This Court on 15.4.2008 while ordering notice before admission granted interim stay of all further proceedings in the appeal before the 2nd respondent. Now a vacate petition is filed by respondents 4 to 6 stating that in fact, they have produced the original agreement of sale executed by the father of the petitioners but the 2nd respondent has not received the same on the ground that it is difficult to keep the said document in safe custody. Be that as it may, it is now agreed by respondents 4 to 6 that they will produce the original agreement of sale executed by the father of the petitioners on any date fixed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and will also give a copy of the same to the writ petitioners and prayed that the appellate authority may be directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, for which the learned counsel for the petitioners also agreed. In the circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to fix a date for the hearing of the appeal on which date respondents 4 to 6 shall produce the original agreement of sale and a copy of which shall be given to the petitioners also. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent shall dispose of the interlocutory applications filed by the petitioners after giving reasonable opportunity to all the concerned as also the appeal as expeditiously as possible. All this exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 22.07.2008 msv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Government of A.P., Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 2CCs to Govt.pleader for Revenue, High Court of A.P. Hyd. 5 2CD copies