IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25575 of 2000 Between: 1 Yedla Balaram, S/o Yedla Maisaiah, R/o H.No.6-113, Dayalgunda, Moosapet Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Yedla Laxmaiah, S/o Yedla Maisaiah, R/o H.No.6-113, Dayalgunda, Moosapet Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Bottu Maisaiah, S/o late Rajaiah, R/o 6-124, Dayarguda Moosapetm Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Bottu Narsimha, S/o late Rajaiah, R/o 6-124, Dayarguda Moosapetm Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Bottu Ragu, S/o late Sattaiah, R/o 6-124, Dayarguda Moosapetm Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 Bottu Raju, S/o late Sattaiah, R/o 6-124, Dayarguda Moosapetm Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 5 The Joint Collecter, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapoohal, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:None appeared Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: MR.A.SUDERSHAN REDDY Counsel for respondent No.5:AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 23-10-2000 passed by respondent No.5, whereby he allowed the appeal filed by respondents 1 to 4 and remanded the matter to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Balanagar for a de novo enquiry. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioners. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record. One Bottu Rajaiah, the father of respondents 1 and 2 and grandfather of respondents 3 and 4, was the protected tenant of the land in question. In the tenancy register, the name of the protected tenant was rounded oﬀ by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer with the endorsement that “deleted on submission of surrendered petition of Sy.Nos.154 and 164 by Sri Bottu Pedda Rajaiah, S/o Agaiah as per endorsement of Tahsildar dated 13-12-1966 in ﬁle No. A1/8026/65”. The said order was questioned, in appeal, by respondents 1 to 4 before respondent No.5. After a detailed consideration of the case, respondent No.5 observed that there is no evidence on record to show that the protected tenant surrendered his rights in writing and on that premise, he remanded the matter to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer to conduct a de novo enquiry under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 after giving due opportunity to all the persons concerned. Having perused the order passed by respondent No.5, I am of the view that the same does not suﬀer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By remitting the matter to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, the interests of the petitioners are in no way aﬀected. Since the order passed by respondent No.5 is supported by sound reasoning, the petitioners failed to make out any case for interference. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 4th September, 2008 vrn