Lavdya Hariya Naik v. The State Of Telangana,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 36114 of 2015 BETWEEN Lavdya Hariya Naik and others ... PETITIONERS AND The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary and others ...RESPONDENTS Date of Order pronounced: 25.11.2015 ORDER:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.
2. Petitioners question proceedings of the Tahsildar in Rc.No.B/47/1993 dated 09.04.2015 on the ground that it is violative of principles of natural justice and seeks consequential direction against the official respondents not to cancel the pattadar passbooks and title deeds of the petitioners.
3. I had heard this writ petition on three occasions as the relief sought for was not clear. Even today, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned proceedings of the Tahsildar to the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) are incorrect and that there is no reason for the RDO to conduct enquiry as proposed in his notice Ex.P3 dated 27.04.2015.
4. After hearing learned Government Pleader for Revenue on these questions and after examining the record it is apparent that the impugned proceedings of the Tahsildar is only a report sent to the RDO and is not an order deciding the rights of the parties nor the said proceeding is enforceable by itself as it is only an internal report given to the RDO. Further, the RDO under Ex.P3 above has been conducting enquiry in compliance with the directions of this Court in W.P.No.15435 of 1989 dated 26.11.1992 and during the said enquiry a notice has been issued to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that they have already appeared before the RDO and filed their counters.
5. In this situation, therefore, no reasons exist for entertaining the writ petition as the impugned proceedings dated 09.12.2015 is not an order but an internal report and that the proceedings are already pending before the RDO for which petitioners are already given notices and they are appearing there. In view of that, no further directions are called for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 25, 2015
LMV