IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5732 of 2009 Between: Uriti Seetharam S/o. Late Narasinga Rao R/o. MIG-9, Green Park Colony, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3 The Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam 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 will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not conducting enquiry and issuing pattadar pass books to the petitioner in Sy.No.45/5, 45/8, 45/10 and 45/12 an extent of Ac.0.24 cents, 0.26 cents, 0.22 cents and 0.21 cents respectively total extent of Ac.0.93 cents, situated in Chepaluppada Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to issue pattadar pass books to the petitioner in the above said lands. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.GOLI.RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.5732 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner felt aggrieved by issuance of pattadar passbooks in favour of one Buddhala Peda Appanna and others in respect of land in Survey Nos.45/5, 45/8, 45/10 and 45/12 of Chepaluppada Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal and filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, the second respondent herein, under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The appeal was allowed on 10.10.2008 and the second respondent directed the third respondent to make proper verification about the enjoyment over the property and issue pattadar pass books. The grievance of the petitioner is that no action has been taken thereon so far. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. On the face of it, the writ petition is untenable and frivolous. It was only in October, 2008 that the second respondent passed an order allowing the appeal. It is not known as to when the order and the connected record were transmitted to the third respondent. Further, this is not only the case to be dealt with by the third respondent. Added to that, the petitioner had impleaded all the dead persons in his appeal. Difficulty would naturally arise about the service of notice on the affected parties. The third respondent has to discharge his functions in respect of the ensuing elections. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. It shall be open to the petitioner pursue the matter with the third respondent after election programme is concluded. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.Narasimha Reddy, J Dt.26.03.2009 VGB