THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH. WRIT PETITION No. 336 of 2009. Dated: 12-1-2009 Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 4th respondent and also learned Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is in possession of an extent of Ac.0-30 cents, out of Ac.0-47 cents in Sy.No. 114-2 in Gondhireddipalli village, Rapthadu Mandal, Anantapur District and also dug a bore-well and installed electric motor and raised Neem trees in the said land, apart from growing flower plants. While he was cultivating the said land, the same was assigned in favour of the 4th respondent by the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal before the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer and the 2nd respondent stayed the operation of the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in assigning the said land in favour of the 4th respondent vide order in DAR.Dis.No.121/1416, dated 28-2- 2007 and posted the appeal for hearing on 1-11-2008. Aggrieved by the said order, the 4th respondent filed a revision before the 1st respondent-Joint Collector. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner also filed Caveat before the 1st respondent. But the 1st respondent without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, set aside the stay granted by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer and remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent for fresh enquiry and disposal. I am of the opinion that there cannot be any justification on the part of the 1st respondent-Joint Collector in setting aside the stay order granted in favour of the petitioner, without giving any opportunity of hearing. Whenever an appeal is filed, it is just and proper to protect the interest of the appellant as on the date of filing of the appeal, and, therefore, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer in granting stay cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 21-12-2008 of the 1st respondent-Joint Collector in setting aside the stay order is set aside and the remand order in so far as directing the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to consider and dispose of the main appeal, is confirmed. The 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to consider the main appeal itself and pass appropriate orders after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. ______________________ 12th January, 2009. rkk