IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.24370 of 2004 Between: Inder Karan S/o.KR.Kanyalal R/o.H.No.16-5-247 Dabeerpura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer Shamshabad Mandal, Shamshabad Rangareddy District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Chevella Division Akthapur Rangareddy 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 may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not pronouncing his reserved orders in Case No.B/1137 of 2002 as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CHINDAM ANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court, at the admission stage, made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer in not pronouncing the orders in Case No.B/1137 of 2002, which was reserved for orders on 01.09.2003, as illegal and arbitrary. The case of the petitioner is that himself, his brother and their wives have jointly purchased the land admeasuring Ac.16.18 Guntas situated in Survey No.41 of Kothwalguda village, Shamshabad Mandal, Rangareddy District under a registered sale deed from one M.V. Subba Rao, who had purchased the same in the Court auction, and since the date of their purchase they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that after purchase of the said land they made an application in Form No. VI (A) before the 1st respondent- Mandal Revenue Officer for mutation of their names in the revenue records in the place of their vendor Sri M.V. Subba Rao and as against the said application one Gandam Sathaiah filed objection petition, the 1st respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer after hearing the arguments reserved the matter in Case No.B/1137 of 2002 for orders on 01.09.2003, but the 1st respondent has not pronounced his orders in the said case so far. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Both counsel agreed to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage. Since the application of the petitioner in Case No.B/1137 of 2002 for mutation of their names in the revenue records in respect of the land in question is said to have been reserved for orders by the 1st respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer on 01.09.2003, without going into the merits of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer to dispose of the said Case No.B/1137 of 2002 in accordance with law expeditiously, if not already disposed of. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. ________________ (N.V. RAMANA, J) Date: 28.12.2004 Nsr/Tvk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer Shamshabad Mandal, Shamshabad Rangareddy District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Chevella Division Akthapur Rangareddy District. 3 Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 4 Two CD copies.