IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 184 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 12/01/2009 in WP NO : 336 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M. Narayana Reddy S/o. M. Chinna Subba Reddy R/o. Pullalarevu Village, Rapthadu Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 M. Subba Reddy S/o. Late Bali Reddy R/o. Pullalarevu Village, Rapthadu Mandal, Anantapur District. 2 The Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 4 The Tahsildar, Rapthadu Mandal, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRI NOOKAJAGANNADHAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO :184 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ appeal is preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the order, dated 12.1.2009 in W.P.No.336 of 2009. The appellant herein is the 4th respondent and the 1st respondent herein is the petitioner in the above writ petition. The 1st respondent herein filed the above writ petition challenging the orders of the Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Anantapur, Anantapur District, dated 21.12.2008, on the ground 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 he has also dug a bore well and installed electric motor and raised Neem trees therein and while so, the same was assigned to the 4th respondent and aggrieved by the said assignment, he preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and in the said appeal, the proceedings of the assignment were stayed and then, the 4th respondent filed a revision before the Joint Collector and the said Joint Collector set aside the stay, without giving any opportunity to the writ petitioner. The learned single Judge having observed that there cannot be any justification on the part of the Joint Collector in setting aside the stay order granted in favour of the writ petitioner, without giving any opportunity of hearing, allowed the writ petition setting aside the order of the Joint Collector dated 21.12.2008 in setting aside the stay order. Having aggrieved by the same, the 4th respondent in the writ petition filed the present appeal. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. On a perusal of the material available on record, it is apparent that the above writ petition was filed seeking to set aside the order of the Joint Collector dated 21.12.2008 on the ground that the said order has been passed, without affording any opportunity to the writ petitioner. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the view of the nature of the proceedings and the pendency of the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the learned single Judge passed the order under appeal setting aside the order of the Joint Collector insofar as setting aside the stay proceedings. In view of the pendency of the appeal as to the assignment of the land in question and in view of the findings of the learned single Judge, We feel that the order under appeal does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ____________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date: 27th February, 2009 Nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 184 of 2009 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 27th February, 2009