IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19364 of 2004 Between: 1 I. Jalapathi Rao S/o Venkat Rao R/o Velpugonda Village, Machareddy Mandal, Nizamabad District 2 K. Tirupathi Rao S/o Venkat Rao R/o Velpugonda Village, Machareddy Mandal, Nizamabad District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy Nizamabad District 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, Machareddy Mandal, Nizamabad District 3 Geriganti Laxminarsaiah S/o Geriganti Narsaiah R/o Velpugonda Village Machareddy Mandal Nizamabad 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 may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, direction or an order, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proposed action of the Respondent NO.2 in not carrying out the directions of this Hon'ble Court W.P. 18266 of 1997 to proceed further pursuant tot he notice of 4-11-96 as arbitrary and illegal and to direct the Respondent No.2 to carry out the orders of the Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 18266 of 1997 as unjust and arbitrary. Counsel for Petitioners:MR.KOMIREDDY KRISHNAVIJAY AZAD Counsel for the Respondents 1&2: GP FOR REVENUE The Court, at the stage of admission, made the following : ORDER Petitioners claim to be the purchasers of Ac.2.00 of land in Sy.No.317 situated in Yellpgonda Village, Nizamabad from the original assignee. The Mandal Revenue Officer-second respondent herein issued impugned proceedings dated 4.11.1996 for cancellation of assignment of the land in question. Questioning the proceedings, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer-first respondent herein and also filed W.P.No.18266 of 1997. Since the impugned notice is only a show cause notice, the said writ petition was disposed of directing the Mandal Revenue Officer to proceed further pursuant to the notice issued on 4.11.1996 and pass appropriate orders within two months. But, in the meanwhile, the third respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No. 210 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kamareddy seeking perpetual injunction against the very same land. In view of the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition contending that the second respondent has to pass appropriate orders pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 4.11.1996 as directed by this Court in W.P.No.18266 of 1997. The present writ petition is filed only to procure evidence from the Mandal Revenue Officer-second respondent herein in strengthening of the case of the petitioners. If the second respondent has not proceeded with the show-cause notice dated 4.11.1996, it is always open for the petitioners to raise defence in the civil suit that they are the purchasers of the property in question, the same was not resumed by the second respondent, and still they continue to be in possession. It is needless to say that the Civil Court will consider all the above said aspects. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed with the above observation. No costs. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY. J. 26th October, 2004 tsr. To 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy Nizamabad District 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Machareddy Mandal, Nizamabad District 3 Two CCs to Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT). 4 Two CD copies.