THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Writ Petition No.932 of 2006 Dated: 17th January, 2006 Between: Dr.S.Bhavani Prasad, s/o Late Sri S.Venkata Krishnaiah, aged about 68 years, Occ: Retired Doctor, r/o H.No.5-9-223, Chirag-Ali-Lane, Abids, Hyderabad. …..PETITIONER AND The Commissioner (Appeals), Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & another. ….RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA W.P.No.932 of 2006 ORDER: Heard both sides. This writ petition questions the action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the stay application in Appeal No.73 of 2005 and consequently seeks a direction to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No.E1/10488/1976, C.C.No.E1/12538/1976 and C.C.No.E1/12539/1976, on the file of the 2nd respondent including dispossession of the petitioner’s family unit. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner filed a declaration in Form-I under Section 6 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, in respect of the properties owned by his family unit. The father-in-law and the sister-in-law of the petitioner also filed declaration and there was a direction by the Appellate Authority directing the special officer to pass a comprehensive order by clubbing all the three declarations as common questions were involved. The 2nd respondent Special Officer passed an order declaring the petitioner as the surplus holder by an order dated 26-9-2005 without clubbing all the matters and without conducting any enquiry as directed by the appellate authority. The sale deed in favour of the petitioner shows that there is a house and there is evidence to show that there are structures and buildings in the land belonging to the petitioner’s wife, which is also included in the declaration. Though the declaration is filed by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent records that, wife of the petitioner filed the declaration. No determination of surplus land can be made without enquiry into the declaration filed by the father-in-law and sister-in-law of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent is not just in not giving even 30 days time from the date of service to file objections under Section 8 (4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 after recording that the petitioner’s wife received the notice on 13-9-2005 and in such a case the time for filing objections expires only on 13-10-2005. The petitioner preferred appeal in Appeal No.73/2005 under Section 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, before the 1st respondent against the order of the 2nd respondent dated 26-9-2005 along with the petition for stay of all further proceedings including taking possession of any land and the 1st respondent appellate authority without assigning any reasons while admitting the appeal rejected the stay petition. Hence, the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Admittedly, despite the appeal and stay petition being filed by the petitioner under Section 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, against the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 26-9-2005 before the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent without assigning any reasons has rejected the stay petition while admitting the appeal. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and in view of the fact that there is every likelihood of the petitioner being frustrated, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, after hearing both sides, in accordance with law. However, till such time there shall be status quo existing as on today for all purposes be maintained, till the disposal of the appeal. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of at the admission stage. No costs. _________________ (D.S.R.VARMA, J.) Date:17th January, 2006. GRK