Appesipeta Sarojamma, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Prl. Secretary,

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO WP.No.36547 of 2017 ORDER:

Heard counsel for petitioner and Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

2.

Notice to 5th respondent is unnecessary, since the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected at the threshold by the 2nd respondent on the ground that there is an appeal maintainable against the order of the 4th respondent before the 3rd respondent.

3.

This view of the 2nd respondent does not appear to be correct, since the petitioner has alleged that by playing fraud and suppressing facts, 5th respondent had obtained assignment patta for agricultural land, and where such allegations of fraud are made, under para 18 of BSO 15, the 2nd respondent is empowered to entertain the revision. 4.

Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to entertain the Revision Petition invoking para 18 of BSO 15 after issuing notice to 5th respondent and decide the same in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

6.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.

______________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J 01st November, 2017.

gra