THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31755 of 2010 Date: 16.12.2010 Between: Peyala Jayaramaiah ..... Petitioner AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa .....Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri D. Raghava Reddy Counsel for Respondent: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in not granting stay of order dated 30.07.2010 of the Tahsildar, Sambepalli, resuming the DKT patta in respect of land admeasuring Acs.3.10 cents comprised in survey No.398/2 of Narayanareddipalle Village, Sambepalli Mandal, Kadapa District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri D. Raghava Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing the respondent. By the abovementioned order of the Tahsildar, the DKT patta was resumed. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent. The respondent, vide his proceedings dated 18.10.2010, inter alia passed the following order: “Perused the orders passed by the Tahsildar, C.K.Dinne, I hereby order that the appeal is allowed and there is no need to grant stay as requested by the appellant. The appellant is directed to attend for enquiry before the undersigned on 23.10.2010 at 11.00 A.M. in person or through Advocate together with recorded evidence and written arguments to prove his contention without fail” The petitioner pleaded that as the respondent has stated in the above order that the appeal is allowed, there is no need for any further enquiry. Alternatively it is his plea that even assuming that the respondent has kept the appeal pending, he ought to have granted stay pending such appeal. A careful perusal of the above order would show that the respondent has entertained the appeal and fixed 23.10.2010 as date for enquiry. Though he has used the phrase “the appeal is allowed”, the fact that he has fixed the date for enquiry implies that what the respondent has obviously meant was that he admitted the appeal and posted the case for enquiry. As regards the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent ought to have granted stay, I find justification therein. The fact that the respondent has admitted the appeal shows that he was satisfied about the existence of prima facie case and having entertained the appeal, he ought to have considered the petitioner’s stay application and passed appropriate order. Instead, he has observed that there is no need for grant of stay. The inevitable consequence of refusal of grant of stay would be dispossession of the petitioner. If the respondent felt that the facts of the case do not warrant granting of stay, reasons therefor ought to be recorded. In the absence of reasons, refusal of stay of operation of the order of resumption cannot be sustained in law. For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in question till disposal of the appeal by the respondent. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.40372 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th December, 2010 Note: Issue CC in one week. (B/o) GHN