IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 3246 of 2008 Between: 1 Smt. G. Yashodamma W/o. Late Parvath Reddy R/o. Palkapallay Village, Achampet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 2 Sri G. Ashok Reddy S/o. Late Parvath Reddy R/o. Palkapallay Village, Achampet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 3 Sri G. Sai Reddy S/o. Late Parvath Reddy R/o. Palkapallay Village, Achampet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 4 Sri G. Krishna Reddy S/o. Late Parvath Reddy R/o. Palkapallay Village, Achampet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkurnool Division, At Nagarkurnool, Mahabubnagar District. 2 The Thasildar, Achampet Mandal, At Achampet, Mahabubnagar. 3 Sri G. Rajavardhan Reddy S/. Narsi Reddy R/o. Palkapally Village, Achampet Mandal, Mahabubnagar 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 may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in admitting the appeal and in passing the stay orders therein in Case No. K/ROR/145/2008 dt. 24-1-2008 in the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent as against the mutation proceedings passed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the petitioners in respect of the agriculture land left by deceased pattadar G. Parvath Reddy vide Order No. ROR/5604/2007 dt. 15-12-2007 as illegal, unlawfl, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and against the constitution of India and consequently all appeal proceedings in Case No. K/ROR/145/2008 as pending before the 1st respondent may be set aside. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.M.DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1and 3: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.3246 of 2008 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner is the wife and petitioners 2 to 4 are the sons of one Late G.Parvath Reddy, who was the owner of the land admeasuring Ac.24-37 gts. in Sy.Nos.50/AA, 51/U, 51/UU, 70/AA, 71/AA, 100/AA, 101, 102, 104/AA, 106/A and 108/AA respectively, situated at Palkapally Village, Achampet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. It is stated that after the death of the said Parvath Reddy, the petitioners being the legal heirs succeeded to the said property. It is stated that their application for grant of succession and mutation of their names in the revenue records has been considered by the 2nd respondent through his order in proceedings No.ROR/5604/2007, dated 15-12-2007, granting mutation in their favour rejecting the objection of the 3rd respondent that one of the share holders namely G.Krishna Reddy, who is the 4th petitioner herein, obtained loan from him promising to repay the same within one year, and as the loan amount has not been paid, the 3rd respondent is entitled for the share of the land of the 4th petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of the 2nd respondent, dated 15-12-2007, the 3rd respondent filed an appeal before the 1st respondent under Section 5(5) of A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”). The 1st respondent, while admitting the appeal, suspended the order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 15-12- 2007, pending disposal of the appeal in Case No.K/ROR/145/2008, dated 24-01-2008. The said order of the 1st respondent has been questioned in this writ petition stating that admittedly there is no alienation of the share of the land of the 4th petitioner and, however, there cannot be any justification in suspending the entire order of the 2nd respondent insofar as the shares of petitioners 1 to 3 are concerned and even in respect of the 4th petitioner also, unless the land is alienated and the so-called agreement has been regularized under Section 5-A of the Act, the 3rd respondent will not get any right, title and interest. I am not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the said contentions as admittedly, the appeal is pending before the 1st respondent. I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, without issuing any notice and without giving any reasonable opportunity to the petitioners, is illegal and unsustainable and against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order is kept in abeyance and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the appeal, after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioners as well as the 3rd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 19-02-2008 Note: Issue C.C. in one week (B/o) Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}