IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.13432 of 2014 BETWEEN Shaik Lalbee.
AND ... PETITIONER The Tahsildar, Rompicharla Mandal, Guntur District and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. G.V. RAMANA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioner has questioned the report of the Tahsildar dated 08.05.2012 sent to the Collector, Guntur, as per the endorsement of the Joint Collector on the petitioner’s application dated 20.03.2012.
2. It is stated that the petitioner filed a grievance petition before the Collector seeking allotment of house site and on that, a report was called by the Collector from the Tahsildar. The said report of the Tahsildar dated 08.05.2012 is challenged in this writ petition and it is stated that the very same land, which the petitioner is seeking, is allotted to the fifth respondent, who has taken up construction.
3. At the first instance, I am unable to see how a writ petition can be filed against an internal report sent by one revenue authority to another superior revenue authority i.e. from the Tahsildar to Collector. The said report by itself is not conclusive, as, admittedly, it is the Collector, who has to take appropriate decision on the request of the petitioner and the Collector may or may not agree with said report and may pass any order, which he feels necessary and proper in the circumstances.
The writ petition, therefore, cannot be entertained, as against the report of the Tahsildar and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, since the request of the petitioner is stated to be pending with the District Collector for the last two or three years, the District Collector, respondent No.3, shall look into the said request of the petitioner by taking into consideration all attending circumstances including the report of the Tahsildar dated 08.05.2012 and pass appropriate orders expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months 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 April 28, 2014 DSK