IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 18690 of 2008 Between: T.Narsing S/o. Late T.Maheshwar Singh R/o. Janwada Village, Shankerpally Mandal, R.R.District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildar, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District at Shankatpally 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West Division, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar. 3 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapul, 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the action on the part of the respondent No.1 in not setting the law in motion by issuing a notiﬁcation on receiving my application under Rule 14 of the Tenancy Rules pertaining to the Tenancy lands situated in sy.Nos. 695 and Sy.No.496 admeasuring Ac.12.03 gts and Ac.2.00 gts respectively situated in Janwada Village of Shankarpally Mandal, R..R.District in Case No.A/622/08 and the inaction on the part of the respondent No.3 in acting as a silent spectator to the highhanded action of the respondent No.1 amounts to corruption, highhandedness, arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal, violative of the Right to Life as embodied in Article 14,15, 16, 21, 46 and 300-A of the Constitution of India apart from violative of the provisions of the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Rules 1950 and the circular instructions given by the State in this regard and consequently direct the respondents to dispose of the ﬁle bearing No.A/622/08 and award suitable costs to the petitioner for the discomfort caused to him on account of the delay on the part of the respondents No.1 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.TULASI DAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the legal heir of original protected tenant, late Tulja Ram, in respect of agricultural lands admeasuring Acs.12.03 guntas, Acs.2.00 guntas, in Survey Nos.695 and 496, respectively, situated at Janwada Village, Shankerpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Initially, the petitioner ﬁled a petition under Section 40 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) read with Rule 14 of the Rules made thereunder, for issuance of Succession Certiﬁcate, and for restoration of possession under Section 32 of the Act, enclosing copy of the order in W.P. No. 18441 of 2006, dated 07.09.2006, which was acknowledged by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent vide memo dated 26.04.2008, informed the petitioner that in view of the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 20360 of 2005, dated 15.09.2005, his oﬃce is not competent to recognize the petitioner as successor under Section 40 of the Act. Immediately, the petitioner states that he ﬁled a memo dated 12.05.2008, requesting the 1st respondent to read the petition as it is ﬁled under Section 32 of the Act read with Rule 14 of the Rules made thereunder, but the 1st respondent has not acted upon the same so far. Hence, the present Writ Petition. The respondents have not ﬁled any counter. However, the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue advanced arguments on their behalf. He submitted that the petition ﬁled by the petitioner as also the memo ﬁled by him subsequently, is still pending consideration before the 1st respondent. As per the orders of this Court in W.P. No. 18441 of 2006, dated 07.09.2006, the petitioner has to ﬁle petition under Rule 14 of the Rules made under the Act for obtaining protected tenancy certificate. In the said order, this Court observed that in case there is no dispute regarding legal heirship, and if the petitioners are protected tenants, they are at liberty to make application under Rule 14 of the Rules made under the Act, but in view of the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 20360 of 2005 dated 15.09.2005, the 1st respondent has not taken any action on the petition filed by the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue and at their request the Writ Petition itself is taken up for ﬁnal disposal. The petitioner in the penultimate para of the memo ﬁled before the 1st respondent, especially with regard to the directions issued by the Joint Collector for following the order of the High Court, has employed oﬀensive and objectionable language, which language, the petitioner cannot be permitted to be used. When the attention of the counsel was pointed out to the language used by the petitioner, he sought permission of the Court to withdraw the said memo, with liberty to ﬁle fresh memo. The relevant portion of the memo, to which this court has taken objection, reads as under: “T he former Joint Collector, who adopted a pro- land lord approach issued the circular instructions to follow the judgment of the learned Single Judge, foolishly instead of preferring an appeal against such void orders. It is not a hard and fast rule to follow the judgment passed by a learned single Judge when the other courts expressed a contrary view”. As prayed, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the said memo, and he is directed to ﬁle a fresh memo, deleting the sentences mentioned above, to which this Court has taken objection. On such memo being filed, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the petition along with the fresh memo to be ﬁled by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ N.V.RAMANA, J Date: 25.09.2008 klp/ksr