IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:23623 of 2008 Between: 1 Duddukuri Ramachandra Rao, S./o. Venkatappaiah, R/o. Rudramkota Post, Velairpadu Mandal, Khammam District. 2 Smt. Duddukuri Ramadevi, W/o. Duddukuri Ramachandra Rao, R/o. Rudramkota Post, Velairpadu Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Joint Collector, Khammam District, Khammam 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palwancha, Khammam District. 3 Duddukuri Suryanarayana, S/o. Venkataiah, R/o. Burgampad Village and Mandal, Khammam District. 4 Duddukuri Gnanender, S/o. Seetaramaiah, R/o. Burgampad Village and Mandal, Khammam District. 5 Duddukuri Ramanaiah, S/o. Satyanarayana, R/o. Burgampad Village and Mandal, Khammam District. 6 Duddukuri Madhusudhan Rao, S/o. Laxmaiah, R/o. Burgampad Village and Mandal, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.P.V.RAMANA Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2:AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to set aside order, dated 25.09.2008 passed by respondent No.1 whereby he set aside order, dated 21.06.2008 passed by respondent No.2, and remanded the appeal to respondent No.2. Heard Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. Against the action of the Tahsildar, Palvancha granting pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the petitioners, respondent Nos.3 to 6 ﬁled appeal before respondent No.2, who by his order, dated 21.06.2008 disposed of the same. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondent Nos.3 to 6 ﬁled revision under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 before respondent No.1, who by his order, dated 25.09.2008 allowed the revision, set aside the order of respondent No.2 and remitted the matter back to him for disposal of the appeal afresh after giving both the parties an opportunity of hearing. The said order is assailed in this writ petition. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent No.1 passed the impugned order on mere suspicion, without speciﬁc ﬁnding on the allegations made by respondent Nos.3 to 6. He also submitted that on 20.09.2008 itself, i.e., the day of ﬁrst appearance of the parties and their counsel, respondent No.1 disposed of the case without granting time to the petitioners to ﬁle their counter-aﬃdavit. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel, I have not felt inclined to accept the same. A perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.1 has referred to the plea of respondent Nos.3 to 6 that respondent No.2 passed order on 21.06.2008 though the case was posted for ﬁling counters by the said respondents on 02.08.2008 and that the counter ﬁled by the petitioners was taken on record by antedating the same. Respondent No.1 veriﬁed the docket sheet of the case proceedings maintained by respondent No.2 and observed that all the pages were handwritten and that only the last page was typed. He also considered the report of the Sub-Collector, Palvancha, which was evidently called for by him and observed that in view of the said report and also in accordance with the desire of both the parties and the further fact that a new incumbent has taken over in place of the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, who passed the order, which was the subject matter of the revision before respondent No.1, he remanded the case for fresh enquiry and disposal after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing. Though in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, the petitioners averred that respondent No.1 passed the impugned order without giving them an opportunity to ﬁle counter to rebut the serious allegations of bribery etc., from the observations made by respondent No.1 in the order under challenge, as noted above, it is evident that both the parties desired that the appeal be heard by the Sub- Collector, who has taken over from the previous oﬃcer who passed the order. Thus, the order under challenge is in the nature of a consent order. Nowhere in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, the petitioners speciﬁcally questioned the correctness of the observations of respondent No.1 on the agreement of the parties for remand. Having thus agreed for remand of the case, it is not permissible for the petitioners to question the said order. Moreover, respondent No.1 has not adjudicated the rights of the parties nor he has given any ﬁnding on the serious allegations made by respondent Nos.3 to 6 against the petitioners. Indeed, he has taken care in not giving ﬁndings on the merits while remanding the case for fresh disposal. By the impugned order, respondent No.1 has provided a fresh opportunity to both the parties to contest the appeal on merits and the interests of the petitioners are in no manner prejudiced. Therefore, I do not ﬁnd any reason to interfere with the order under challenge. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.30804 of 2008 ﬁled by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 31st OCTOBER, 2008. Note: issue copy in three (3) days. B/o kvni