IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 19861 of 2008 Between: 1 Smt. Lakshmi Devi W/o. Late Y.Ramadas R/o. Bukkarayasamudram Village & Mandal, Ananthapur District. 2 M.Nagabhushana S/o. Late Y.Ramadas R/o. Bukkarayasamudram Village & Mandal, Ananthapur District. 3 M.Nagesh S/o. Late Y.Ramadas R/o. Bukkarayasamudram Village & Mandal, Ananthapur District. 4 M.Nagarjuna S/o. Late Y.Ramadas R/o. Bukkarayasamudram Village & Mandal, Ananthapur District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Joint Collector, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. 2 The Tahsildar / MRO, bukkarayasamudram Mandal, Ananthapur district. 3 Ch. Ruth Subhashini W/o. John Sundaram, R/o. R.K.Nagar, Ananthapur. 4 M.Sudheer Babu S/o. Sreerami Reddy C/o. John Samudram R/o. R.K.Nagar, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. 5 Nagi Reddy S/o. Narappa Reddy C/o. John Samudram R/o. R.K.Nagar, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. 6 K.Rajagopal Reddy S/o. Rami Reddy C/o. John Samudram R/o. R.K.Nagar, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. 7 B.Suryanarayana Reddy S/o. Pedda Errappa C/o. John Samudram R/o. R.K.Nagar, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. 8 B.Ramkrishna REddy S/o. Rami Reddy C/o. John Samudram R/o. R.K.Nagar, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. 9 B.Ramachandra Reddy S/o. Nagi Reddy C/o. John Samudram R/o. R.K.Nagar, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. 10 B.Venkata Reddy S/o. Rami Reddy C/o. John Samudram R/o. R.K.Nagar, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. 11 K.Venkata Narayana Reddy S/o. Rami Reddy C/o. John Samudram R/o. R.K.Nagar, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. 12 C.Thomas Mandi S/o. Ijaiah C/o. John Samudram R/o. R.K.Nagar, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not ﬁnalizing the vacate stay petition as well as the revision petition in Rc.No.D4/2989/2008 pending before th e1st respondent, even though there is a direction by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No. 10976 of 008 dated 22.5.2008, is illegal arbitrary and principles of natural justice, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: Questioning the action of the respondents in not ﬁnalizing the vacate stay petition as well as the revision in Rc.No.D4/2989/2008 pending before the 1st respondent in spite of directions of this Court in W.P.No.10976 of 2008 dated 22.5.2008, the present writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and at their request the writ petition is taken up for ﬁnal disposal at the admission stage itself. It is the case of the petitioners that questioning the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Bukkarayasamudram Mandal, the 2nd respondent herein, they preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, which was allowed and questioning the same, the unoﬃcial respondents carried the matter in revision before the 1st respondent who by orders dated 25.4.2008 granted stay and questioning the same, the petitioners herein ﬁled W.P.No.10976 of 2008 before this Court which was disposed of on 22.5.2008 directing the petitioners to ﬁle an application before the 1st respondent to vacate the stay granted by him and directed the revisional authority to dispose of the same. The revisional authority was also directed to dispose of the revision itself, even though vacate stay petition is not ﬁled, within two months from the date of receipt of the said order. The grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of the said orders, the 1st respondent has neither disposed of the vacate stay application or the revision. The only grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is non-implementation of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.10976 of 2008, which was disposed of on 22.5.2008. If the directions of this Court in the said writ petition are not complied with by the 1st respondent – revisional authority, the remedy of the petitioner is to initiate proper proceedings for violation of the said orders and not a fresh writ petition seeking implementation of the orders passed in the earlier writ petition. Hence, I see no reason to entertain the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.12.9.2008 msv