IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 9968 of 2004 Between: J. Ramesh, S/o. Natarajan, Hindu, R/o. Balakrishnapuram Mangalam (Village), Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner (Appeals), Land Administration, Govt. of A.P., Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3 J. Vasanthamma, W/o. Natarajan, HIndu, R/o. Balakrishnapuram, Mangalam (Village), Chittoor District. 4 Godla Gopal, S/o. Muniswamy Naidu, S.V. University, Tirupathi, Chittoor 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 issue any Writ, Order or Direction more especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the in action of the 1st respondent not passing the orders in stay petition filed by the petitioner in R..P.No.P3/1101/2001 as illegal and arbitrary and consequentially direct the qst respondent to pass appropriate orders forthwith pending R..P.No.P3/1101/2001 For the Petitioner: MR.J.U.M.V.PRASAD, Advocate For the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed praying for a direction to the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders forthwith on the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner in R.P.No.P3/1101/2001 pending before the 1st respondent. The brief facts, according to the petitioner, relevant for disposing of this writ petition are that the mother of the petitioner (3rd respondent herein) purchased land of Ac.2-65 in sy.No.31/1A (old Sy.No.31/1P) of Mangalam Village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Tirupathi, Chittor District from one Arjuna Pillai in the year 1968 and she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same having been granted Ryotwari Patta by the Settlement Officer, Nellore. Thereafter, the Director of Settlement has taken up a suo moto revisional enquiry in respect of the said land, and after considering the material on record, finally dropped further proceedings. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent – M.R.O. at the instance of the 4th respondent, who claims to be the subsequent purchaser of some extent of land from the 3rd respondent, filed a revision before the 1st respondent to resume the said land. After coming to know about the said revision, the petitioner filed an application before the 1st respondent to implead him as a party to the said revision. As no orders were passed on his application, he filed W.P.No.2299 of 2004 to dispose of the said application. The said writ petition was disposed of on 10-2-2004 directing the 1st respondent herein to dispose of the revision and the implead petition filed by the petitioner after due notice to the parties, if not already disposed of, within six months from the date of receipt of the order. While so, as the 4th respondent is trying to alter the nature of the land by erecting some structures for establishing a petrol pump in the said land, the petitioner has filed a petition on 28-2-2004 before the 1st respondent to stay all further proceedings including construction in the land in question, pending disposal of the revision. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent is not passing any orders on his application nor was the petitioner given any date of hearing, though the 4th respondent is planning to alter the nature of the land. In the circumstances, the petitioner prays for a direction to the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders on his application for staying the construction activities in the said land. Herd the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. During the course of arguments, both the counsel agreed that the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner to stay construction work in the land in question. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the interlocutory application dated 28-02-2004 filed by the petitioner in R.P.No.P3/11001/2001 pending before the 1st respondent, after due notice to the interested parties, expeditiously, preferably within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ______________ N.V. RAMANA, J Date: 22-06-2004 Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow (Bo) Svv To 1. The Commissioner (Appeals), Land Administration, Govt. of A.P., Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3. Two C.Cs. to G.P. for Revenue, High Court buildings, Hyderabad(O.U.T) 4. Two C.D. copies 5. One spare copy