IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 11883 of 2008 Between: Maisigari Chandraiah S/o late Mallaiah R/o H. No. 2-74, Bahadoorpalli Village, qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector & Addl. district Magistrate-I, Ranga Reddy District at Lakdi-ka-Pool, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Grade Dy. Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer Ranga Reddy District (East Division) at Hyderabad. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Qutubullapur Mandal at Qutubullapur, Ranga Reddy District. 4 P. Sreedhar S/o Late Brahmaiah Ramanujulanagar, Wesley Teachers Colony, Lalapet, Secunderabad- 500 017. 5 Rajender Reddy Gaddam S/o ganga Reddy Gaddam R/o H. No. 6-1/118/12, Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad. 6 Y. Sreenivas Goud S/o Y. Rajalingam Goud R/o H. No. 48-35, Ganeshnagar, Chintal,. Ranga Reddy 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 issue a writ, order or Direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings No. D5/2439/08 on the file of the 1st Respondent Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad as wholly untenable and opposed to principles of natural justice and consequently declare the same as null and void, and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.HARI HARAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6: SRI C.PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following Order: This writ petition is filed questioning the order of the first respondent dated 22-04-2008, whereby he stayed the order of the second respondent dated 24-03-2008. The case of the petitioner is that the property in Survey No.229 admeasuring Acs.2.00 in Bahadoorpalli village, Quthubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District originally belonged to one Maisagari Veeranna, who was his grand father. After his death, the petitioner’s father became absolute owner and was in possession and enjoyment of the same. Petitioner states that his father died intestate leaving him and his brother, late Veeraiah and since then he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question. Petitioner states that the third respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, vide proceedings dated 01-05-2007, mutated the name of one Boina Peramma and others striking out his name without any notice to him. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 5(B) of the A.P. Records of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) before the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, who by order dated 19-03-2008 stayed the order of the third respondent. During the pendency of the appeal, respondents 4, 5 and 6 preferred a revision before the first respondent-Joint Collector contending that they are the interested parties to the proceedings since they have purchased the property in question by way of a registered agreement and that the first respondent by impugned proceedings dated 22-04-2008 stayed the order of the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent had passed the impugned proceedings without any notice to him, and the same having been issued in violation of principles of natural justice, is liable to be set aside. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6. As against the order passed by the third respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the same is still pending. Since respondent Nos. 4 to 6 herein claim to have purchased the lands in question from the respondents in the appeal that is pending before the second respondent, they are necessary parties to the lis. Hence, respondent Nos. 4 to 6 shall get themselves impleaded as respondents in the appeal before the second respondent and file their counter within a period of four weeks from today. Thereupon, the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, shall consider and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of two months. Pending disposal of the appeal, the respondents are directed not to change the name of the Boina Peramma, from whom respondent Nos. 4 to 6 claim to have purchased the land, in the revenue records. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________ N.V.RAMANA,J Dt:24-06-2008 usd