IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO: 336 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 27/12/2006 in WP NO: 26247 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: D.Ramachander Singh, S/o. Shanmbu Singh, R/o.Mirzaguda,H/o. Janwada Village, Shankerpalle Mandal, R.R Dist. ... APPELLANT AND 1. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Hyderabad. 3. J. Jagannath Reddy, died per LR's Suguna Devi, W/o. Late Jagannath Reddy, H.No.5-10-188/1, Hills Fort Road, Hyderabad. 4. J. Dilip Reddy, S/o. Late Jagannath Reddy, H.No.5-10-188/1, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad. 5. J. Pradeep Reddy, S/o. Late Jagannath Reddy, H.No.5-10-188/1, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.Y.RAMA RAO Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: ASST. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: Oral Judgment: (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. Heard the learned advocates. 2. Writ Petition No.26247 of 2006 has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, this appeal has been filed. 3. The circumstances in which the petition has been dismissed are as under: The petitioner, who is an appellant herein, was aggrieved by an order dated 05.05.2005 passed in appeal by Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy. The appeal had been dismissed for default and, therefore, an application for restoration was filed by the petitioner. As the said application was not being disposed of, the petition was filed. 4. At the time of hearing of the said petition, it was submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue that an order had already been passed on the application on 03.5.2006 whereby the application had been dismissed. 5. In the afore-stated circumstances, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition by observing that it was open to the petitioner to obtain a copy of order dated 03.5.2006 and challenge the same. 6. Some development has taken place after the afore-stated petition was dismissed. 7. After dismissal of the petition, the petitioner approached Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy with a request to furnish a copy of order dated 03.5.2006. The Joint Collector informed the petitioner by letter No.A6/87/2007 written in March, 2007 that there was no order dated 03.5.2006 whereby his application for restoration had been dismissed. 8. In the afore-stated circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this appeal. 9. At the time of hearing of the appeal, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that there was some mistake with regard to the date of the order whereby the petitioner’s application for restoration has been rejected. The application was rejected on 05.5.2006 and not on 03.5.2006. In view of the said fact, when the petitioner applied for a copy of order dated 03.5.2006 dismissing the application, the Joint Collector informed the petitioner that there was no order dated 03.5.2006. 10. As a clarification has come from the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the application was rejected by an order dated 05.5.2006 and not on 03.5.2006 and as a copy of order dated 05.5.2006 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner has already been given to the learned advocate for the petitioner, now the grievance ventilated in the petition does not survive. 11. Needless to say that it would be open to the appellant petitioner to take appropriate action in accordance with law upon getting a copy of order dated 05.5.2006. 12. Subject to the afore-stated clarification, the appeal is disposed of. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ April 09, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J svs ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {BMR}