IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.26527 of 2014 BETWEEN Syed Mahboob Jain and others AND ... PETITIONERS The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. The husband of petitioner No.1 i.e., Syed Abdul Khader Jeelani, is stated to have purchased Ac.5-00 of the land in survey No.32/2 of A.S.Peta Village, A.S.Peta Mandal, from one Syed Khaja Miya under an agreement of sale dated 19.04.1985 and is stated to be in possession since then. Later, after the demise of said Syed Abdul Khader Jeelani, the pattadar passbooks and title deeds with regard to the said lands were issued by the revenue authorities to petitioner No.1-wife, and petitioner Nos.2 to 5-children. It appears that respondent Nos.5 to 7 submitted a representation, dated 25.12.2013, before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), respondent No.3, asking for cancellation of pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued to the petitioners. After issuing notice, dated 07.01.2014, to the petitioners, the RDO, by order, dated 07.07.2014, vide proceedings in Rc.B.53/2014, appears to have passed orders on the said representation directing cancellation of pattadar passbooks of the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have preferred revision before the Joint Collector, respondent No.2, bearing No.E2/2873 of 2014 along with an interim application for suspension of the order of the RDO. The said appeal having been filed on 06.08.2014, the grievance of the petitioners is that the appeal or the application for stay is not being taken up.
3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the appeal is now posted before respondent No.2 on 22.09.2014.
4. In view of that, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider the petitioners’ aforesaid appeal along with the stay petition and pass appropriate orders at least to the extent of interim application for stay filed by the petitioners, on the date so fixed, and thereafter decide the appeal at his convenience at the earliest.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 18, 2014 LMV