IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10951 of 2008 Between: 1 T.E Parvathi W/o.T.G Elumalai Door No.6/50C Eswaran Koli Street Puttur Chittoor Dist 2 T.Lakshmi W/o.T.Srinivasulu, Door No.6/50B Eswaran Koli Street Puttur Chittoor Dist 3 T.Rajeshwari W/o.T.M.Balakrishnan, Door No.6/33Eswaran Koli Street Puttur Chittoor Dist 4 V.Saroja W/o.V.M Venugopal, Door No.6/34Eswaran Koli Street Puttur Chittoor Dist ... PETITIONERS AND 1 Revenue Divisional Officer Chittoor,Chittoor District 2 The Tahasildar Puttur Puttur Mandal Chittoor District 3 A.A.Armugham S/o.A.Arjuna Mudali D.No.27/55, Kamarajanagar Gate Puttur Puttur Town, Chitoor District 4 Smt Kannimma Husband'name not known R/o.Middle Street Chinthalapatteda(V)&(P) Nagari(M) Chittoor 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 will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer Puttur Puttur (M) Chittoor Dist vide Proceedings No.A/278/07 dt.25-10-2007 as illegal arbitrary and contrary to the R.OR act 1971 and consequently direct the respondents 1and 2not to dispossess the petitioners from the land in Sy.No.139/1 an extent of 0.40 cents Puttur(V) Puttur(M) Chittoor Dist. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.DASARADHA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 10951 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioners preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent, against the order dated 25.10.2007, passed by the 2nd respondent. The subject matter of the proceedings is the issuance of Pattedar Passbooks, in respect of land in Sy.No.139/1 of Puttur village and Mandal. Initially, the Pattedar Passbooks are said to have been issued in favour of the petitioner, on 10.2.2007, and thereafter, cancelled vide proceedings, dated 25.10.2007, at the instance of respondents 2 and 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that on account of non-disposal of the appeal, or non-extension of any interim orders, it is becoming difficult to maintain their possession. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioners have already availed the remedy of appeal, against the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Before the appeal is heard, the affected parties need to be put on notice. It is not known as to whether respondents 3 and 4 have not been served with notices in the appeal. Be that as it may, an early disposal of the appeal would be in the interest of both parties. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders in the appeal preferred by the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from today, duly ensuring that the affected parties are served with notices. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ 22nd May 2008 PAN