Smt. Kappari Sarada v. The Joint Collector, Rr Dist.,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD WRIT PETITION NO.6931 OF 2004 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the order passed by the first respondent in case No.D5/8533 of 2002, dated 28.06.2003, confirming the order dated 7.12.2002 in proceedings No.A2/44/2002, passed by the second respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unjust.

2.

It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the land in an extent of Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.234, situated at Srinagar village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from 6th respondent under a registered sale deed dated 6-12-1999, vide document No.4811/99, registered in the Office of the SubRegistrar, Maheshwaram. The vendor was the grand son of the protected tenant and the original pattedar was one A.Venkata Narayana Rao, from whom the land was purchased under an agreement of sale dated 6-12-1952. It is further stated that one Gunda Laxmamma having interest upon the land, has filed a petition under Section 32(2) of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and the same was ordered and that the said order has been carried in appeal before the Joint Collector. The said appeal was dismissed and thereafter, C.R.P.No.1186 of 1989 was filed and the same was allowed on 24.07.1998. The Mandal Revenue Officer has issued mutation proceedings on 9.01.2000 in favour of the petitioner and

recorded the same in Revenue Records and he issued pattedar pass books on 19.01.2000. The 6th respondent with an intention to deceive the petitioner, has filed an appeal before the second respondent and the same was allowed on 7.12.2000 and against the said order, respondents 7 and 8 filed a revision before the first respondent and the said revision was dismissed on 28.06.2003, confirming the orders of the second respondent and he observed that the suit in O.S.No.679 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District is pending. 3.

Heard.

4.

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing on both sides, represented that the suit has been disposed of and both parties came to an understanding and in the light of the same, the writ petition can be closed without adjudicating the matter.

5.

Recording the above submission, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. _______________________ T.AMARNATH GOUD, J Date: 07-12-2017.

Shr.