Vadde Lalamma, v. The State Of Telangna

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT Writ Petition No.17866 of 2017 ORDER:

The petitioners challenge the order of 2nd respondent in ROR Revision No.71 of 2015 dated 03.01.2017.

2. The operative portion of the order reads thus: " The respondents have submitted the following documents along with the counter:

1. Copy of plaint in OS No.183/ 2014 on the file of Court of the learned Agent to Government, Khammam.

2. Copy of written statement submitted by respondents No.1 and 3 herein in OS No.183/ 2014.

3. Copy of certified extract of ROR 1-B Register pertaining to revision petitioner No.3.

4. Copy of certified extract of ROR 1-B Register pertaining to respondent No.1.

5. Copy of Adoption document of Respondent No.1 signed by the Revision Petitioners No.1 to 3 and late Rayala Latchaiah.

6. Copy of document of partition by way of family settlement dt.21.05.1977 executed by revision petitioners No.1 to 3 and respondent No.1.

7. Copy of House hold ration card issued in the year 1996 pertaining to Rayala Rukma Rao.

Heard the arguments and examined the connected documents. The matter is subjudice. Hence, the revision petition dismissed. Any Miscellaneous petitions shall stand disposed off. Given under my hand and seal on 3rd day of January, 2017."

3. One of the objections raised by Sri G.L. Narasimha Rao, is that the order impugned in the revision suffers from too much of brevity and a ground for interference under writ jurisdiction is made out.

4. I have perused the order impugned in the writ petition and taken note of succinct expression used by 2nd respondent for rejecting the revision. To the extent of conclusion recorded, learned counsel may be right against the order impugned in the writ petition but in isolation it is not appreciated. This court is of the view that preceding to such conclusion, 2nd respondent referred to a few circumstances, which are

primarily decided by a competent civil court. It is not in dispute that the petitioners herein and respondents 4 to 6 are parties in OS No.183 of 2014. Therefore, the 2nd respondent refused to pass order under A.P. Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 etc. (for short 'the Act'). It is needless to observe that the maintenance or correction of entries under the Act, having regard to the scope of Section 8 of the Act, is dependent on the out come of OS No.183 of 2014.

5. Without expressing any view on merits of the case pleaded by the petitioners, by leaving it open to them to raise all objections, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions if any in this writ petition shall stand dismissed in consequence.

____________ S.V.BHATT, J Date: 07.06.2017 BSS

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT Writ Petition No.17866 of 2017 Date: 07.06.2017 BSS