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.37200 of 2014 BETWEEN T.Krishna and others 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. Since the issue involved in this writ petition is only limited to the request of the petitioners for directions to the revisional authority to hear the interlocutory application and/or the revision petition before respondent No.2 pending since 06.08.2014, notice to respondent Nos.5 and 6 is not necessary to be issued in view of the order proposed to be passed.
3. Petitioners herein were granted pattadar passbooks and title deeds by respondent No.4 vide orders in File No.B/844/12 dated 01.05.2013. However, on appeal against the said order, respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer in Appeal No.A3/2763/2013, by an order, dated 02.06.2014, allowed the appeal and set aside the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued to the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, petitioners filed a revision, which is pending before respondent No.2 in file No.F3/3717/2014. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition, however, is that neither the said revision nor the stay petition filed by them is being considered by respondent No.2 and no date is given in the said revision. Petitioners state that taking advantage of the situation, respondent Nos.5 and 6 are seeking implementation of the order of the appellate authority and requesting the Tahsildar respondent No.4 to cancel the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued to the petitioners.
4. In view of the fact that petitioners have already invoked Section 9 of the Act, and has approached respondent No.2 by filing the revision, it would be just and appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing respondent No.2 to fix an early date of hearing to the petitioners’ revision and/or interim application for stay and pass appropriate orders at least to the extent of interlocutory application moved by the petitioners expeditiously and in any case within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. 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