HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM W.P.No. 4370 of 2004 DATE: 24.04.2014 Between:
G.Rajasekhar Naidu .. Petitioner And Revenue Divisional Officer and four others .. Respondents O R D E R:-
This writ petition is field questioning the proceedings in Roc C/439/03, dated 16.12.2003 issued by the 2nd respondent – Mandal Revenue Officer.
The 2nd respondent, in the impugned proceedings passed on the representation dated 05.08.2003 said to have been made by one M.Madhava Naidu and others, brought to the notice of the 1st respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, detailed report of enquiry in relation to certain lands in Sy.No.501/1 situated in Patnam village, Thavanampalle Mandal. By virtue of the impugned proceedings, the writ petitioner is under the apprehension that the authorities may initiate eviction proceedings against him. Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking to quash the impugned proceedings.
This Court, by order dated 10.03.2004, while admitting the writ petition granted interim suspension of the letter dated 16.12.2003.
The 2nd respondent – Mandal Revenue Officer filed counter affidavit on 20.07.2004 inter alia stating as under:
“Aggrieved by the enquiry report sent to the 1st respondent, R.D.O., Chittoor in Roc/C/439/2003, dated 16.12.2003 by the 2nd respondent – Mandal Revenue Officer, Thavanampalli, the present writ petitioner, Sri G.Rajasekhar Naidu filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad requesting to set aside the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer. It is submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable because the enquiry report of the 2nd respondent is neither an order nor any proceedings for cancellation of Pattadar passbook / title deed. It is only an internal correspondence between the 1st and 2nd respondents. The present writ petition is filed only on a mere apprehension that the pattadar passbook / title deed issued to the petitioner would be cancelled. So far, no action has been initiated either by the 1st respondent or by the 2nd respondent cancelling the petitioner’s pattadar pass book / title deed. The proceedings, if any, initiated by the 1st respondent, would be only after giving notices to the respective parties and also by following the procedure contemplated under law.”
In the light of the categorical stand taken by the 2nd respondent that the enquiry report is neither an order nor any proceeding for cancellation of pattadar passbook / title deed of the petitioner and that the writ petition came to be filed only on a mere apprehension that eviction proceedings would be initiated against the petitioner, no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is needless to mention that any action adverse to the petitioner is proposed to be taken the same shall be done by following due process of law. No order as to costs.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the writ petition, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 24.04.2014 bcj