Chita Devender Reddy, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * * WRIT PETITION No.23602 of 2015 BETWEEN Chitti Devender Reddy.

... PETITIONER AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, Medak District and others. ...RESPONDENTS DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 29.07.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR 1.

Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?

No 2.

Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

No 3.

Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

No

ORDER:

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the second respondent in proceedings No.B/752/2014 dated 14.07.2015 wherein the revenue entry with regard to Sy.Nos.117, 124, 126 to 134 of Jagdevpur village and Mandal, Medak District admeasuring Ac.25.00 guntas have been amended by deleting the unauthorized entries.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contests the said order on various grounds and states that the order of deletion of entry in favour of the petitioner is erroneous. However, the said order being appeallable, petitioner preferred an appeal on 22.07.2015 before the first respondent along with an application for stay. Learned counsel states that the first respondent is yet to take up the appeal and the stay application and in the absence of any orders passed by the appellate authority at least to the extent of interim relief, the impugned order of the second respondent, referred to above, is being given effect to and the revenue entries are being altered.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader.

4. The challenge to the order of the second respondent on the grounds as set out in the affidavit in support of writ petition is not necessary to be adjudicated by this Court, as the same is already subject to appeal before the first respondent and petitioner is at liberty to raise all his contentions in the said appeal. However, in matters of this nature, it is necessary that the first respondent should at least take up and pass appropriate orders on the interim application at the earliest.

5. Keeping that in view and the apprehension of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to direct the first respondent to fix a date for hearing of the appeal after notice to petitioner and pass appropriate orders at least on

the interim application filed along with appeal within a period of one week from today. The first respondent is also at liberty to call for the records and examine them and after giving notice to all the parties in the appeal, hear and decide the appeal expeditiously thereafter. Pending passing of appropriate orders on the interim application by the first respondent, as directed above, the revenue entries, as existing, as on today, with regard to the subject land shall be maintained for a period of two (2) weeks subject to further orders that would be passed by the first respondent. The writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 29, 2015 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 30.07.2015 (B/o) DSK