IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 14706 of 2009 Between: Kondem Yellaiah S/o. K.Kanakaiah R/o. Bheemaram Village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of A.P., Rep. by The Prl. Secretary ( Revenue ) Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Deputy Collector ( LA ) Sri Ram Sagar Project, Warangal, having his Office at Subedari, Hanamkonda. 3 The Executive Engineer, DEE Sub-Division-IV, JCR, GLIP Kakatiya Canal Camp, Chintagattu Village, Hasanparthy (M), Warangal District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal 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 appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in filing the Review petition before ths 1st respondent and the action of the 1st respondent in entertaining the same and passing the orders of suspension vide memo No. 61539/Assn.II(2)/2008-I, dated 17- 12-2008 as absolutely illegal, arbitrary, erroneous, unconstitutional, ultra vires powers and contrary to settled principles of law and principles of natural justice and slo contrary to the provisions of the AP (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli and consequently quash the said proceedings of review petition filed by the 3rd respondent and pending before the 1st respondent and Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CHAVALI RAMANAND Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 14706 of 2009 28-07-2009 Oral Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4 and the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation for respondent No.3. The memo dated 17-12-2008 of the 1st respondent suspending the order dated 23-05-2007 of the District Revenue Officer, Warangal is assailed in this writ petition. The petitioner petitioned the D.R.O., Warangal under Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (T.A.) Land Revenue Act, 1317-F (for short ‘the Act’) seeking rectification of entries in respect of land in survey No. 163/B1 and 163/B2 of Bheemaram village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District. By the order dated 23-05-2007 the D.R.O., Warangal, in purported exercise of powers under Section 166-B of the Act directed cancellation of the entries in the revenue records wherein the name of Kakatiya Canal is entered, an entry recoded in respect of land in survey No. 163/B2 to an extent of Ac.01-10 guntas and directed substitution of the name of the petitioner with effect from 1987-88 to 2002-03 as was earlier recorded up to 1986- 1987 and further directed the 4th respondent to take necessary action for rectification of entries as ordered in the D.R.O. proceedings. The 3rd respondent appears to have preferred a revision/appeal before the District Collector, Warangal for a correction of the D.R.O’s order dated 23-05-2007. The District Collector rejected the revision holding that he had no jurisdiction and that only the Government has jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 166-C of the Act. Thereupon the 3rd respondent appears to have approached the CCLA and on the CCLA declining to exercise jurisdiction, approached the 1st respondent seeking a revision under Section 166-C of the Act. The 1st respondent passed the impugned order dated 17-12-2008 suspending the D.R.Os. order dated 23- 052007. It appears that the 1st respondent is oblivious to the fundamental procedure that a person adversely affected even by an ad-interim order ought to be communicated a copy of the interim order. The 1st respondent has merely marked communication of the order (suspending the D.R.O’s order dated 23-05-2007) to the revision petitioner and the counsel for the 3rd respondent. Even a copy is not marked to the petitioner. This is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs and this Court hopes and trusts that the State Government will do well to depute senior executive officials for training in quasi judicial adjudication procedure before imposing untrained officials on the public, as this generates avoidable litigation. Be that as it may. The petitioner could somehow procure a copy of the order dated 23-05-2007 from the 4th respondent when the 4th respondent threatened him with dispossession. He now has intimation of the exercise of revisional power at the instance of the 3rd respondent, purportedly under Section 166-C of the Act. As the petitioner does not plead nor establish inherent lack of jurisdiction in the 1st respondent, no writ interdicting the exercise of revisional powers under Section 166-C of the Act could be issued. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies before the 1st respondent for vacation of the order of interim suspension and for dismissal of the revision as well. The objections by the petitioner when presented would be considered by the 1st respondent and shall be disposed of by a speaking order. In the facts and circumstances, the 1st respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the revision petition filed by the 3rd respondent (on the basis on which the impugned order dated 17-12-2008 is passed), expeditiously and preferably within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In this the 1st respondent shall fail not. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 28-07-2009 Pvks