HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.32596 of 2011 Date: December 13, 2011 Between: Irneni Sudharshan Rao … Petitioner And 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad, and 3 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.32596 of 2011 O R D E R: Petitioner claims that he was granted a patta along with others for the land in Survey No.200 (old) of Ramachandrapur village, Mulug Mandal, Warangal District in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.410 Revenue (Assignment.II) Department, dated 12.5.1994. Petitioner states that several villagers were also granted pattas similarly. His grievance in the present writ petition is that an unconnected third party has filed a grievance petition before the Joint Collector, who has taken up enquiry therein and by exercising suo motu powers under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights of Records in land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971, has issued impugned proceedings dated 08.9.2011. Challenging the legality thereof, the present writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned proceedings as void and contrary to ROR Act. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader I am unable to see any subsisting grievance for the petitioner to contest the said impugned order. The said order itself reflects that the grievance which came to the notice of the Joint Collector is taken up by the Joint Collector suo motu under Section 9 of the ROR Act and prima facie, having satisfied that there were irregularity in grant of pattas, he seeks to conduct an enquiry. To facilitate the said enquiry the Joint Collector has stated as hereunder: “Hence, the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Mulug for issuance of pattedar Pass Books to the villagers of Rangapur village of Nallabelli Mandal in the land in Sy.no.200 situated at Ramachandrapur village of Mulug Mandal are hereby stayed, till the disposal of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reads the aforesaid order as adverse to the petitioner which I am not able to accept, as the aforesaid order merely directed the Tahsildar to stay proceedings for issuance of pattedar passbooks pending enquiry by the Joint Collector. Since it is the case of the petitioner that he has already been granted pattedar passbook, it cannot be said that the aforesaid sentence adversely affects the petitioner’s pattedar passbook already issued and the aforesaid direction is only with respect to issuance of pattedar pass books thereafter (i.e., after the order of Joint Collector). The said direction in the impugned order is even otherwise justified as the learned Joint Collector is proposing to enquire into the matter relating to grant of pattas in the wake of allegations of illegalities and irregularities. 4. Under Section 9 of the ROR Act, the Joint Collector being empowered to enquire into and verify the correctness of any proceedings of his subordinate revenue officers, in my view, the present writ petition is moved merely on apprehensions. The petitioner is free to participate in the proposed enquiry taken up by the Joint Collector and make submissions in support of the pattedar passbooks in his favour. The petitioner therefore cannot be said to be aggrieved by the said impugned order. 5. The writ petition therefore does not deserve to be entertained and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. Date: December 13, 2011. BSB