IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 28289 of 2008 Between: 1 Daljeet Singh S/o Late S.Satpal Singh House No.3-6-69/b/69 Avantinagar Colony Basheerbagh Hyderabad 2 Balavinder Singh S/o Late S.Satpal Singh House No.3-6-69/b/69 Avantinagar Colony Basheerbagh Hyderabad 3 Navaljit Kaur W/o.Daljeet Sigh House No.3-6-69/b/69 Avantinagar Colony Basheerbagh Hyderabad 4 Satwant Kaur W/oBalvinder Singh House No.3-6-69/b/69 Avantinagar Colony Basheerbagh Hyderabad ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Joint Collector R.R.District, at Lakdi Ka Pool, Hyderabad. 2 The RDO, Chevella at Attapur, R.R.District. 3 The Tahsildar, Sankarpally Mandal, R.R.Dist. 4 P.Srinivas Reddy S/o. P.Sherva Reddy 6-3-596/24, Venkatramana Colony Panjagutta, Hyderabad. 5 A.Venkateswar Reddy S/o. A.Pratap Reddy 3-4-284, Lingampally, Kacheguda, Hyderabad. 6 G.Mallesh S/o. G.Pochaiah 14,Jeera, R.P.Raod, Secunderabad. 7 B.Harish Reddy, S/o. B.Sarotham Reddy Jajeshwar Rao, Ground Floor, Bhagatsingh Nagar, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, R.R.District. 8 Mohd Asif Ali Khan S/o. Late Nawab Hohsdar Khan Flat No.201, Mehtap Plaza, 10-2-287/A/2, Shanty Nagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in suspending the order dt 10-12-2008 in case No.C/4198/2008 passed by the respondent No.2 as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional as illegal and arbitrary and be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 28289 of 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the first respondent-Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in suspending the order dated 10-12-2008 passed by the second respondent is arbitrary and illegal. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed by the first respondent pending the revision petition filed by respondents 8 to 10 herein under Section 9 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattada Pass Books Act, 1971 challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 10-12-2008 in respect of the land in Sy.No.307 of Janwada village, Shankerpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The first respondent, having entertained the revision petition, while granting interim suspension of the order of the second respondent dated 10-12-2008, adjourned the matter to 24-01-2009. The said order has been challenged in this writ petition primarily on the ground that the impugned order which was passed without notice to the petitioners herein in spite of the caveat entered on their behalf is arbitrary and illegal apart from being in violation of principles of natural justice. Various other contentions have been also been raised on merits. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 8,9 and 10. Since the revision petition is admittedly pending before the first respondent and the validity of the order dated 10-12-2008 passed by the second respondent is the subject matter of the said revision petition, it is neither necessary nor proper for this Court to express any opinion on merits. Moreover, since the impugned order is only an interim order, it is always open to the petitioners herein to file an appropriate application before the first respondent to vacate the said order in which event, the first respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the first respondent, having granted the interim order adjourned the matter to 24-01-2009 and therefore the petitioners are unable to take immediate steps for getting the order vacated. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to receive the application if any filed by the petitioners herein to vacate the order dated 17-12-2008 and pass appropriate orders following due process of law by preponing the date fixed in the impugned order dated 17-12- 2008 as expeditiously as possible preferably with in a period of one week from the date of filing of such application. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 31-12-2008 Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow. B/o KLP