IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 10802 of 2008 Between: 1 Allam Venkatarao @ Venkateswararao S/o. Ramamurthy R/o. Oguru [V], Kandukur [M], Prakasam District. 2 Allam Raja S/o. Ramamurthy R/o. Oguru [V], Kandukur [M], Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector / Additional District Magistrate, Prakasam District at Ongole. 3 Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur Division, Kandukur, Prakasam District. 4 Tahsildar, Kandukur, Prakasam District. .....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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not staying the execution of order of 2nd respondent in R Dis E2/4589/2004, dt. 27.05.2005 pending revision as illegal, irregular, and contrary to provisions of AP Board of Revenue Standing Orders and Offends Art. 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands of Ac.3.80 cents in Sy. No.173-6A1 and Ac.1.80 cents in Sy. No.173-6A1 of Oguru Village pursuant to said order and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 10802 of 2008 Order: As against the orders dated 07.03.2008, passed by the Director, Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, Hyderabad, confirming the orders dated 27.05.2005, passed by the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, canceling the assignment made in favour of the petitioners in respect of the lands in question, the petitioners state that they filed revision before the 1st respondent-Government along with stay petition, but till date no orders thereon have been passed, and pending disposal of the said revision, the respondents are trying to dispossess them from the lands in question. When the matter is taken up for admission, both the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue agreed for disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: The 1st respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the revision filed by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, expeditiously. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by the parties. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 09.06.2008 Nsr