B. Shankar Reddy v. The State Of Telangana

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 4624 OF 2016 ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. With the consent of both the parties the present Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself. The present Writ Petition came to be filed seeking a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, to dispose of the appeal filed by the fourth respondent since the petitions referred to in the Memo dated 11.05.2015 has nothing to do with the order under challenge. A perusal of the material on record would show that the Tahsildar vide order dated 13.01.2011, made in proceedings No.ROR/Kannala/135/2010, accepted the claim of the vendors of the petitioners herein and ordered implementation of their names in the revenue records. Challenging the same, the fourth respondent herein i.e.

, Andhra Pradesh Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The RDO vide order dated 19.09.2013, directed the Tahsildar not to implement any documents and also not to make any entries in the revenue records in Survey Nos.108, 109, 110/1 and 111 admeasuring Acs.57.00 guntas, Acs.135/80 guntas, Acs.41.18 guntas and Acs.09.30 guntas respectively of Kannala Village, Bellampalli Mandal and the SubRegistrar, Asifabad was also instructed not to make any transactions until further orders.

Subsequently, on 30.09.2013, the RDO, Mancherial, wrote a letter to Sub-Registrar requesting him to stop all further transactions and registrations in the above survey numbers, until further orders. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition came to be filed by the persons who are aggrieved by the action of the SubRegistrar in not registering their properties.

It is to be noted that the properties which are subject matter of dispute in W.P.Nos.28256, 28213, 30211, 30304, 18152 of 2014 and 1451 of 2015 have nothing to do with the property which is involved in the present case, though it falls in the same survey numbers. Hence, the order of the RDO in postponing the hearing of the appeal on the ground that the matter is sub-judice before the High Court may not be correct.

Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District to dispose of the appeal filed by the fourth respondent bearing No.G/5313/2013, after issuing notices to the petitioners and also to the fourth respondent herein before adjudicating on the issue. It is needless to mention that the RDO shall complete the entire exercise as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months, in accordance with law, after issuing notices to all the interested persons in the appeal. No costs. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR 12.02.2016 vhb