THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition Nos.2400 and 2457 of 2011 DATE: 14 .11.2011 Between: K.Jagannath and 5others. …Petitioners And Joint Collector, R.F.District, Hyderabad and 6 others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition Nos.2400 & 2457 of 2011 COMMON ORDER : These two revision petitions are filed aggrieved by the orders dated 30.04.2011 passed by the Joint Collector, R.R. District-the Appellate Authority under Section 90 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’) vacating the interim stay granted in favour of the revision petitioners pending the main appeals preferred by them against the order dated 04.10.2008 passed by the Deputy Collector and Tashildar, Hayatnagar. The revision petitioners claim to be the owners and possessors of Ac.2.25 guntas and Ac.1.29 guntas situated in Sy.No.47 and 48 respectively at Pedda Amberpet Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, whereas the respondents 3 to 7 in C.R.P.No.2400 of 2011 and respondents 3 to 6 in C.R.P.No.2457 of 2011 claim that one P.Pentaiah @ Penta Reddy was the protected tenant in respect of the land in Sy.No.48 and one V.Latchaiah was the protected tenant in respect of land in Sy.No.47. It was also claimed by the respondents that on the death of the said protected tenants, they being the legal heirs have acquired rights by succession under Section 40 of the Act. Alleging that the protected tenants were evicted forcibly from the land in question, the respondents approached the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Hayatnagar seeking recovery of possession and incorporate their names in the revenue records. Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Hayatnagar by separate proceedings dated 04.10.2008 ordered delivery of possession of the land in Sy.No.48 in favour of the respondents 3 to 7 in C.R.P.No.2400 of 2011 and the land in Sy.No.47 in favour of the respondents 3 to 6 in C.R.P.No.2457 of 2011. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 04.10.2008, the petitioners herein preferred appeals under Section 90 of the Act, before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. By order dated 10.03.2011 the Joint Collector granted interim stay of the order dated 04.10.2008. However, after appearance was entered on behalf of respondents the Joint Collector by separate orders dated 30.04.2011 vacated the interim stay. Challenging the said orders dated 30.04.2011, these two revision petitions are filed under Section 91 of the Act. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned orders which were passed without hearing the petitioners and moreover without assigning any reasons are arbitrary and illegal. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents while submitting that pursuant to the orders of the Deputy Collector, dated 04.10.2008 the land in question was delivered to the respondents by conducting panchanama dated 03.06.2009, contended that the appeals which were filed without explaining the inordinate delay are not maintainable and therefore, the ex parte interim stay was rightly vacated by the Joint Collector. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the main appeals are now coming up for hearing and that the respondents are ready to argue the appeals. It is true that the Joint Collector, while vacating the interim stay under the orders under revision did not assign any reasons. However, the preamble of the order itself shows that the said orders were passed after hearing the learned counsel for both parties. Be that as it may, since the orders under revision are not final orders and the main appeals are already posted for hearing, in my considered opinion the interference by this Court is not warranted merely on the ground that no reasons were assigned in support of the impugned orders. It is also relevant to note that the main appeals were preferred in December, 2010 against the orders passed by the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar dated 04.10.2008 directing delivery of possession to the respondents. According to the respondents, the possession was already delivered to them on 03.06.2009. Long thereafter, the ex parte stay was granted in favour of the revision petitioners on 10.03.2011 and the same was subsequently vacated on 30.04.2011. Having regard to the admitted fact that the interim stay was in operation only for a short period of about 7 weeks and the copy of the panchanama dated 03.06.2009 shows that the possession was delivered to the respondents much prior to that, I do not find any justifiable reason to disturb the orders under revision at this stage. Instead, I deem it appropriate to direct the Joint Collector to dispose of the main appeals expeditiously. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, both the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeals pending on his file following due process of law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 14 .11.2011 KLP