IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:6446 of 2005 Between: M/s. Indrakaran Stone Polishing and Cutting Industry, Pragati Industrial Estate, Warangal, rep. by its - Managing Parnter Mr. M. Vijayakaran, S/o. Narsoji, R/o. Door No.16-7-145, Grain Market, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Adilabad District, Adilabad. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Jainadh Mandal, Adilabad District. 3 Mr. T. Pocha Reddy, Assistant Village Secretary, Foujpur Gram Panchayat, Jainadh Mandal, Adilabad District. 4 Thota Bhuma Reddy S/o. Ashanna Fouzpur village, Jainath Mandal, Adilabad Dist. 5 Thota Ashok S/o. Bhuma Reddy Fouzpur village, Jainath Mandal, Adilabad Dist. 6 Thota Swamy S/o. Bhuma Reddy Fouzpur village, Jainath Mandal, Adilabad Dist. RR 4to6 impleaded as per court order dt. 29-7-2005 in WPMP 20084 of 2005 .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.V.R.RUDRA PRASAD The Court made the following : ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, this writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in making necessary corrections in the revenue records over an extent of Acs.4.05 guntas of land in Survey No.38/A of Foujpur Village, Jainadh Mandal, Adilabad District, as arbitrary and illegal. At the hearing, Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, respondent No.2 passed an order against the interests of the petitioner and that questioning the said order, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, who is sought to be impleaded by the petitioner in WPMP.No.31331 of 2008 as respondent No.7 in the writ petition. A separate order is passed today in the said application, wherein the said Oﬃcer is added as respondent No.7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the pendency of the appeal pursuant to the order passed by respondent No.2, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. He, however, requested that respondent No.7 may be directed to dispose of the pending appeal. Having regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous, however, with the direction to respondent No.7 to dispose of the appeal said to have been ﬁled by the petitioner, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of main petition as infructuous, WPMP.No.31332 of 2008 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th NOVEMBER, 2008. kvni