G.Bheemaiah, S/O. Late Adavaiah v. The State Of Telangana

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.30260 of 2015 ORDER:

Heard.

Questioning the order of the 4th respondent directing mutation of names of respondents 9 to 11 in the revenue records with regard to the lands admeasuring Ac.3-27 gts., in Sy.No.212/A, 2-30 gts., in Sy.No.213/A, Ac.4-03 gts., in Sy.No.214/A and Ac.17-10 gts., in Sy.No.239 situated at Aloor Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent. In the said appeal, the petitioner has questioned the very entitlement of the 11th respondent by contending that the 11th respondent is no way concerned with Adivaiah, who is the father of the petitioner, and in fact, 11th respondent is the son of one Late Chandraiah and, therefore, he cannot be successor of Adivaiah. Various other contentions were also raised including that the 4th respondent has not been able to trace the original file.

Accepting the said contentions and finding that the Tahsildar has failed to conduct necessary enquiry, the 3rd respondent has set aside the order of the 4th respondent and remitted the matter to the 4th respondent directing to conduct denovo enquiry, after issuing notices to all the concerned and, after verification of the record, pass a reasoned order. The said order remitting the matter to the 4th respondent is questioned in this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that when the file itself is not traceable by the 4th respondent and, having found that the impugned proceedings before the appellate authority were issued by the 4th respondent without verification of the record and without following due procedure, the 3rd respondent has rightly set aside the order of the 4th respondent, but erroneously remitted the matter to the 4th respondent, as it serves no purpose.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that when the file itself

is not traceable, the 4th respondent cannot conduct enquiry as directed under the remand order.

I am unable to see any legal ground to interdict the order of remand passed by the 3rd respondent, inasmuch as the 4th respondent has jurisdiction to conduct enquiry and pass a reasoned order and that the order of the 3rd respondent clearly directs the 4th respondent to pass a reasoned order, after verifying all the records, after issuing notice and after examining the matter afresh, and as such, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, as he would have notice of such proceedings and will be heard by the 4th respondent before passing any order. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, the 4th respondent shall ensure that status-quo existing as on today to be maintained till he passes the order, as directed by the 3rd respondent.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J Date: 16-09-2015 Note:

Issue C.C. by 22-09-2015 (B/o) Prv

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.30260 of 2015 16-09-2015

Prv