IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 19032 of 2008 Between: Mr. Kanthilal Sughandhi S/o. Late Kishandas, R/o. 21-3-187, Moosa Bowli, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector - I, Office of The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 2 Mr. Ashok Babu S/o. Late Kishandas, R/o. H.No. 21-3-129, Tagarikanaka, 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 pass an writ or order particularly writ in the Nature of Mandamus declaring the acts of the Respondents No.1 in not disposing the Case No. D5/3809/2002 along with I.A., ﬁled for Restoration of the same by Setting aside the dismissal order dt: 16-09-2005, ﬁled by the petitioner herein against the respondent No.2 even though more than 6years are elapsed as arbitrary and illegal. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BAJRANG SINGH THAKUR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.19032 of 2008 Order: Petitioner claims to be the owner of land admeasuring Acs.11.07 guntas in Survey No.369 situated at Rallaguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, and after a detailed enquiry, his name was mutated in the revenue records under Section 5A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). It is stated that as there were some disputes between himself and heirs of one late Mohanlal in respect of the said property, the petitioner ﬁled O.S.No.427 of 1995 on the ﬁle of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Ranga Reddy District and the same was compromised on 10.10.2000 asserting his ownership rights over the said property. Thereafter, the petitioner ﬁled an application before the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Chevella and vide proceedings, dated 24.11.2001, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer passed orders as per the decree of compromise. Aggrieved thereby, the second respondent ﬁled W.P.No.26868 of 2001 before this Court and the same is pending. It is stated that while the said writ petition is pending, the second respondent approached the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Chevella, and through an order, dated 15.06.2002, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer reviewed his earlier order. Against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Act before the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District, the ﬁrst respondent herein. But, the same was dismissed for default. Therefore, the petitioner ﬁled I.A., on 21.09.2005 seeking to set aside the dismissal order, dated 16.09.2005. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the I.A., was ﬁled way back in the year 2005 and in spite of his repeated requests, the ﬁrst respondent has not passed any orders so far. Hence, the present writ petition. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the ﬁrst respondent, on instructions, submits that even though the petitioner has ﬁled the application seeking to set aside the dismissal order, way back in the year 2005, he has not chosen to pursue the same, and therefore, the ﬁrst respondent has not passed any orders. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the ﬁrst respondent and at their request the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. Admittedly, the application ﬁled by the petitioner seeking to set aside the dismissal order, dated 16.09.2005, is pending consideration before the ﬁrst respondent. When once an application is ﬁled before a competent authority, it is the bounden duty of the authority to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after issuing notices to the parties concerned. If the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the matter, the ﬁrst respondent is at liberty to pass orders on merits. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the ﬁrst respondent to pass appropriate orders on the application ﬁled by the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 04.09.2008 VGB/VV