1. This court issued Rule nisi on 17-06-2009.

2. Counter affidavits had been filed.

3. Though the matter is coming under the caption “Interlocutory”, at the request of the counsel on record the Writ Petition itself is being disposed of finally.

4. The writ petitioner, K. Ramachandra Rao, filed the present writ petition for a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring the impugned action of the respondents, particularly the 1st respondent in passing orders in Revision Petition filed by the petitioner, through Memo No.29099/Pts.IV/A2/08-5, dt.22-05-2009, without assigning any reasons and thereby dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the impugned Memo No.29099/Pts.IV/A2/08-5, dt.22-05-2009 and pass such other suitable orders.

5. Ms.P.S. Bhramaramba Devi, learned counsel representing the petitioner had taken this court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the respective stands taken in the counter affidavits and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also had taken this court though the different proceedings, the grounds of revision, the order issued by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat and also the order made by the District Panchayat Officer and the representation made by the petitioner before the District Panchayath Officer, permission No.22/2008 issued by the Gram Panchayat, objection raised by the petitioner before the District Panchayat Officer, Mahaboobnagar District, the representation made by the petitioner before the Gram Panchayat for construction of compound wall along with translated version, pattedar pass book, certified copies of the minutes book, the true copy of Revision Register of House Tax issued by the Gram Panchayat. The learned counsel also would maintain that the very entertainment of the appeal though the second respondent is not the appellate authority, would go to show that for certain extraneous reasons the second respondent had entertained the said appeal and made the said order. The learned counsel also would comment that the matter was carried by way of Revision before the revisional authority – the first respondent, wherein the specific ground of the inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of the second respondent to entertain the appeal had been raised, but for the reasons best known without adverting to all the aspects the said revision also was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition had been filed. The learned counsel also placed strong reliance on certain decisions. Incidentally The learned Counsel also pointed out to several other factual controversies, which are not well related to the present writ petition.

6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj had taken this court through the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent and would maintain that it is no doubt true that under certain specified circumstances the second respondent can entertain a second appeal. But however, in the present case the second respondent had only given certain directions as competent authority and hence the order under challenge in the revision and also the revisional order made by the first respondent cannot be found fault. The learned AGP for Panchayat Raj also referred to the relevant material papers, the letter dated 04-08-2009 and the appeal petition filed by the 4th respondent along with the documents, the proceedings of DPO, Mahabubnagar, dated 25-11-2008 in Proc.No.A3/986/2008 and the Government Memo No.29099/Pts.IV/A2/2008-5, Dt:22-05-2009.

7. Sri Venugopal the learned counsel representing Sri Badana Bhaskar Rao would maintain that inasmuch as the second respondent and first respondent as quasi judicial authorities made these orders, a writ of certiorar