Goli Sadanandam v. State Of Telangana,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * WRIT PETITION Nos. 29475 and 29601 of 2015 BETWEEN Goli Lakshminarayana and another ... PETITIONERS AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and others ...RESPONDENTS Date of Order pronounced: 15.09.2015 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether his Lordship wish to see the Yes/No

fair copy of the Judgment?

COMMON ORDER:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned government pleader for Revenue.

2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the non-consideration of their revision petitions and the stay petition filed therein, which were filed before the second respondent-District Collector, on 14.08.2015. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the RDO, Mancherial in proceedings No.G/2101/15 dated 10.07.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that it has now been made over by the District Collector to the Joint Collector, Adilabad.

3. The primary contention raised in the writ petition is that the document on the basis of which the Service Society seeks cancellation of pattadar passbook, is itself of doubtful veracity and it is sought to be demonstrated that though the stamp paper for the said document styled as sale deed was obtained on 17.07.2000 sale deed itself is executed on 11.04.2000, much prior to the purchase of stamp paper. Petitioners state that though the specific contention apart from other aspects was argued before the RDO, none of the said contentions are considered and the appeal was disposed of. Petitioners are therefore constrained to approach the revisional authority by filing the revisions along with applications for stay on 14.08.2015 but so far even the stay petitions are not posted for hearing and no orders are passed though interim application is required to be heard urgently.

4. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the learned Joint Collector, Adilabad to fix an early date for hearing in the said revisions and at least hear and dispose of the stay petitions filed by the petitioner therein preferably within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, writ petitions are disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 15, 2015 Note:- Registry to mark a copy of this order to the Joint Collector, Adilabad.

{B/o} LMV