THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITON No.10610 of 2010 Date:31.08.2010 Between: Mirza Mukaram Ali Baig. ……..Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, Revenue (SS) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ……Respondent. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITON No.10610 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Mirza Kukuram Ali Baig seeking mandamus declaring the in action on the pat of the respondents in considering the representation as bad and illegal consequently, direct the respondent to dispose of the revision case No.191510/SS.1/2001 as expeditiously as possible. This is the second journey of the petitioner. Earlier the petitioner filed W.P.No.16690 of 2002 assailing the inaction on the part of the revisional authority in considering the revision filed by the respondents 5 to 8 therein. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 3.9.2002. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder:- “It is a matter of record that this court through the order in writ petition No.25342/99 remanded the matter to the 1st respondent for fresh disposal and the same has been affirmed in writ appeal. Neither in the writ petition nor in the writ appeal any time was stipulated for disposal of the same. That, however, does not constitute a ground for the 1st respondent to keep the revision pending indefinitely. The rights of the parties have to be settled as early as possible. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the revision pending before it within six months from the date of this order.” It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the direction given by this Court in W.P.No.16692 of 2002 the revision has not been disposed of by the respondent. When the writ petition came up for admission on 16.6.2010, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue received notice and sought time for filing counter. Subsequently, the respondent filed counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the revision could not be disposed of because of 3rd parties filing implead petition one after the other. Para No.8 of the counter affidavit needs to be noted and it is thus:- “While the matter stood thus, the replies of the Collector, Ranga Reddy District were received by the Government on 30.09.2009. When the matter is under adjudication before the Government one Sri Nagarjuna Choudary and others have filed an application as impleading petitioners before the Government in written on 01.05.2010 & 15.06.2010 with a request to give another opportunity to peruse the submission made by the other parties in the subject land, so that they can prepare their arguments. Further Smt.Shahjehan Begum and 4 others, said to be share holders of suit property along with the present petitioner have filed an impleading petition through their counsel before the Government stating that they are the legal share holders of the suit land and the present petitioner herein had intentionally not included their names in the pending proceedings before the Government and requested to implead them in the pending proceedings, before taking a decision in the matter. Since third parties are filing implead petition one after the other, the matter could not be finalized.” Heard learned counsel for the parties. Indisputably, the revision filed by Ranga Venkatesh, Ranga Amarender, Ranga Rajaram and Pasula Mallaiah is pending consideration with the respondent herein. The reason given by the respondent in the counter affidavit for non disposal of the revision cannot be appreciated. Be that as it may, since the revision is still pending with the respondent, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent to dispose of the Revision Case No. No.191510/SS.1/2001 within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:31.8.2010 mrb