IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 14691 of 2008 Between: Sk. Kalesha S/o. Jaffar Saheb R/o. Udayagiri (Vil) Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, Nellore District. 2 The Tahsildar, Vinjamur Mandal, Vinjamur, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Tahsildar, Vinjamur Mandal, Vinjamur, Nellore District the 2nd respondent herein in not conducting re- enquiry after giving opportunity to the petitioner as directed by the 1st Respondent in the proceedings in D.Pr. 6465/2005 dt. 12- 12-2007 is arbitrary illegal, and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to conduct re-enquiry after giving opportunity to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.CKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 14691 of 2008 Order: The petitioner states that as against the orders dated 07.08.2004, passed by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, resuming the land in question to the Government, he preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, who, by order dated 12.12.2007, has remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar for re-enquiry. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the said order was passed as long back as on 12.12.2007, so far no enquiry is conducted nor any orders are passed by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar. Hence, he ﬁled the present writ petition. In spite of granting suﬃcient time, no counter is ﬁled by the respondents so far. However, when the matter is taken up for admission today, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, submitted that so far no enquiry, as directed by the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, is conducted by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar. She further submitted that the present Tahsildar is a new incumbent and he received charge today and sought time to complete the enquiry as directed by the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. In view of the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the same with the following directions: The 2nd respondent-Tahsildar is directed to conduct and complete the enquiry, as directed by the 1st respondent- Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, vide his orders dated 12.12.2007, and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 25.07.2008 Ksr/Nsr