IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 883 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/06/2009 in WP NO : 12434 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M.Lakshman Rao S/o.Venkaiah MP Palli(V) Charla(M) Khammam District ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Joint Collector Khammam District at Khammam 2 The Sub Collector Bhadrachalam,Khammam District 3 The Tahsildar Charla(M) Khammam District 4 K.Rangamani W/o.Rangababu H.No.4-19-12 Vidyadharapuram,Vijayawada .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.C.H.SATISH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No:883 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) The petitioner in W.P.No:12434 of 2009 challenges the order dated 25.6.2009 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the said writ petition. The petitioner filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the 1st respondent-revisional authority to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 29.4.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent in ROR Appeal No:14/CHRL/2008. The facts leadings to file the writ petition are that on the appeal filed by the 4th respondent before the 2nd respondent under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, the same was allowed by order dated 20.4.2009 cancelling the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner and his mother. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a revision before the 1st respondent on 15.6.2009 along with an application for grant of interim orders. On the ground that the 1st respondent has not yet passed orders on the interlocutory application, the present writ petition was filed. The learned single Judge having observed that the 1st respondent is a quasi judicial authority who has administrative functions as well and the revision by the petitioner was preferred a mere nine days prior to the institution of the writ petition, dismissed the writ petition. Having aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the petitioner. Heard. Before going into the merits of the case, it is to be noted that the very inaction of the 1st respondent in granting interim relief is questioned in this appeal. Immediately, after filing of the revision, the writ petition in question is preferred by the petitioner. Both the revision petition as well as the interlocutory application are kept pending before the 1st respondent. In view of the same, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, We feel it just and proper to direct the 1st respondent to consider the disposal of Interlocutory application in question within a period of four (4) Weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, this writ appeal is disposed of. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ______________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar Dated: 07.07. 2009 Gurc/dvs. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO :883 OF 2009 (Division Bench Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) 7th July, 2009