IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.37215 of 2014 BETWEEN S.Babu Rao AND ... PETITIONER The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the pendency of the revision petition before the Joint Collector, respondent No.2 herein, and that respondent No.2 is not passing any order either in the revision petition or in the interim application filed along with the revision petition. The facts of the case disclose that the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in faovur of the petitioner by respondent No.4 in ROR File No.B1/15969/10 dated 02.04.2011 was set aside by the appellate authority, respondent No.3 in appeal No.F/1082/2013 dated 30.08.2013 and thereby the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued to the petitioner were cancelled. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed a revision, which is pending before respondent No.2 since 08.11.2013, along with the stay petition.
3. Since the relief sought for in this writ petition is related to hearing and disposal of the said revision, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent Nos.5 to 7.
4. Instructions received by the learned Government Pleader show that petitioner’s revision though numbered by respondent No.2, it is found that it is not affixed with Rs.5/- court fee stamp and, as such, under a memo dated 16.11.2013, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner was directed to take appropriate steps, but so far no court fee is paid.
In the circumstances, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to forthwith comply with the discrepancy in the revision, as pointed out in the memo of the Joint Collector, referred to above, and respondent No.2 shall thereafter fix a date for hearing of the revision and/or application for stay and consider and pass appropriate orders atleast to the extent of interim application of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 4, 2014 LMV