IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) Monday, the 2nd day of August 2010 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16791 of 2010 Between: Kondapally Raghuram Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Warangal District, Warangal and three others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 16791 OF 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Kondapally Raghuram Reddy with a prayer to issue a writ or direction, particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for records from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad, Warangal, the second respondent, and set aside the order passed by him in Appeal No.A/110/2010 dated 22.06.2010. The petitioner claims to be the owner of Ac.23.09 guntas of land comprising Sy.No.492/B of Kampally village of Kuravi Mandal having purchased the same under a sada sale deed in the year 2002 from Akula Narsamma. He initiated proceedings before the Tahsildar, Kuravi Taluq, Warangal District under Section 5-A of the Andhra Pradesh Right in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971(herein after called as ‘ROR’ Act) got the alienation validated. Subsequently, he sold Ac.6.00 guntas to one Kankanala Subrahmanyam. The respondent herein filed an appeal under Section 5-B of ROR Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobabad, assailing the order of the Tahasildar, Kuravi in validating the alienation. The appellate authority on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, formulated three points for consideration: 1. Whether the land purchased from Late Smt.Akula Narsamma, W/o.Chalamaiah, R/o.Mannegudem village of Dornakal Mandal in Sy.No.492/B situated at Kampally village of Kuravi Mandal by the petitioner and respondent are genuine or not? 2. Whether issuing of Pass Book to the respondent is in accordance with the ROR Act and Rules or not? 3. Whether the Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar, Kuravi has examined the facts on the spot before going to issue N.O.C. to the respondent or not? All the issues came to be held against the petitioner herein. The appellate authority by order, dated 22.06.2010 allowed the appeal and cancelled the patta passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner herein through Khata No.610 P.B.No.T.136978 and Khata No.721 P.B.No.W 157844 for Sy.No.492/B/2 extent 17.00 Acres. The said order is assailed in this writ petition. When the writ petition came up for admission, caveator-4th respondent entered appearance and filed counter. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the very filing of the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad, Warangal, under Section 5-B of ROR Act by the fourth respondent herein is not legal and proper and therefore, the order passed by the appellate authority is to be declared as illegal and improper. The learned counsel took me to the relevant portion of the counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the petitioner herein has already extracted and sold more than Rs.2.00 crores worth of valuable black granite from the said area in question. By referring the said averment in the counter, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner tried to ascertain that the petitioner is in possession of the land in dispute. Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submits that the petitioner had filed a revision before the Joint Collector as provided under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971 and therefore, the petitioner has to work out his remedy before the Joint Collector. I have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated by the petitioner in the affidavit that he has filed revision under Section 9 of ROR Act. For better appreciation, I deem it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the writ affidavit, which reads as hereunder: “ I respectfully submit that I have availed the statutory revision under Section 9 of ROR Act before 1st respondent and the Revision has not been taken up as the Joint Collector is on sick leave. Since there is every possibility of initiating coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders passed by the 2nd respondent in collusion with the 4th respondent, the present writ petition is filed to seek the remedy as the petitioner is invested heavy amounts in running the quarry operation in the schedule area. However, there is no bar in approaching this Hon’ble Court by way of the present writ petition, as the fundamental rights of the petitioner are adversely affected due to the arbitrary action of the 2nd respondent. If the impugned order is not suspended by this Hon’ble Court the workers who are working under the quarry operation become jobless and their livelihood is at stake, apart from loss to the exchequer.” Since the petitioner has invoked the revisionary jurisdiction of the authority under Section 9 of the ROR Act, I deem it not proper to adjudicate the issue on merits. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the revisional authority, i.e. Joint Collector, Warangal District, Warangal, to consider the revision and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks. There shall be Status Quo existing as on this day with regard to the entries in the pass books for a period of four weeks. No order as to costs. ________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:02-08-2010 Note: Issue C.C.within three days. B/o. Rns