IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11243 of 2008 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11243 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is a private limited company. It had acquired an extent of Ac.25.00 cents of land in Sy.Nos.108/AA and 108/EE by way of purchase from different persons. The 3rd respondent passed an order dated 15.04.2006 directing resumption of the land on the ground that the alienation is hit by the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, the second respondent herein. The appeal was rejected on 20.06.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred further appeal before the first respondent together with an application for stay. His grievance is that the first respondent has not passed any order in the application for stay and in the meanwhile the third respondent is taking steps to dispossess the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner availed the statutory remedy under Section 4-A of the Land Acquisition Act feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the third respondent. The second respondent granted stay, vide orders dated 08.05.2006 during pendency of the appeal. On dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner filed further appeal before the first respondent along with an application for stay. The interest of the petitioner was protected during the pendency of the appeal before the second respondent with the order of stay passed on 08.05.2006. Unless the same arrangement is continued, the very purpose of preferring the appeal before the first respondent will be defeated. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the order of resumption passed against the petitioner by the third respondent shall remain stayed pending disposal of the appeal by the first respondent, and the appeal in turn shall be disposed of within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Date:28.05.2008 Ccm/nsr