K.Harinatha Reddy, v. Commissioner Appeals,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT WRIT PETITION No.26795 of 2013 ORDER:

Heard Mr. Sudhakar Rao Ambati, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and Mr. S.V. Muni Reddy and Mr. Surya Kumar, learned counsel for contesting private respondents.

2.

The petitioners challenge the order, dated 29.07.2013, in CCLA Proceedings No.V2/55/2010, V2/98/2010, V2/99/2010, V2/100/2010, V2/114/2010, V2/223/2010 & V2/112/2013. The principal ground of challenge against the order impugned in the writ petition is that the first respondent, while disposing of the cases pending before him and remanding the issue for consideration to the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor (3rd respondent), recorded a few findings on the merits of the matter and thus, the petitioners are prejudiced.

3.

I have perused the findings against which grievance is canvassed in the instant writ petition.

4.

Prima facie, this Court is of the view that the conclusions or observations, if any, made in the order, dated 29.07.2013 of 1st respondent are primarily for the purpose of setting aside the orders impugned in the appeal pending before the first respondent. As the issue is remitted for consideration by the third respondent, this Court, while disposing of the writ prayer, clarifies that the third respondent, on restoration of files to record, proceeds in the matter strictly in accordance with law and according to the record.

>>2<< SVB, J W.P.No.26795 of 2013 5.

Except the above, no other point is urged and the Writ Petition is disposed of by this consent order. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

__________________ S.V. BHATT, J Date: 7th September, 2017 KL

>>3<< SVB, J W.P.No.26795 of 2013 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT WRIT PETITION No.26795 of 2013 Date: 7th September, 2017 KL