HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.29115 of 2010 O R D E R; The petitioners, whose pattas were cancelled by the 2nd respondent herein by orders in D Dis (E4)/12390/09 dated 30.07.2010, have filed this Writ Petition, assailing the orders of the 1st respondent- Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (Appeals), Hyderabad in CCLA’s Proc.No.BCW2/537/2010 dated 15.11.2010, insofar as the order refusing to grant stay of the orders of the 2nd respondent herein, as illegal. The matter has come up for admission and on the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. The brief facts are that the 1st petitioner was assigned patta for an extent of Ac.1.43 cents of land situated in S.No.171/1 of Velampadu village, Srikalahasti Mandal in the year 1980. Similarly, the 2nd petitioner was assigned patta in respect of an extent of Ac.3.40 cents of land in S.No.172/2 and the 3rdpetitioner was assigned an extent of Ac.5.00 of land in S.No.145/2. The said land of the petitioners is situated in Velampadu village of Srikalahasti Mandal and the assignment was made in the year 1988. The 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice vide proceedings No.ROC No.E4/12390/2009 dated 20.02.2010 to the petitioners proposing to cancel the pattas on certain grounds, alleging that the petitioners were not residing in the places mentioned in the pattas. The petitioners submitted their explanations dated 11.3.2010. Being not satisfied with the explanation, the 2nd respondent cancelled the assignments made in favour of the petitioners under the provisions of Clause 15(18) of the Board standing orders by orders in D.Dis (E4) 12390/09 dated 30.07.2010. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent and along with the said appeal they also sought for stay of the operation of the said order. The 1st respondent though admitted the appeal, rejected the stay petition by the impugned orders. The petitioners have therefore filed this Writ Petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the various allegations made against the petitioners for cancellation of the pattas are not correct and they were qualified for assignment of land in their favour. He would further contend that pattas were granted as long back as in the year 1988 and the 2nd respondent is not justified in cancelling the same after a lapse of more than two decades. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader would submit that enquiry was conducted and the petitioners were found disqualified for pattas, and therefore the 2nd respondent is justified in cancelling the pattas. The learned Government Pleader would also contend that the petitioners could, as well, contest the matter in the appeal before the 1st respondent. Appeal is the continuation of the original proceedings. An adverse order passed against a person does not become final, unless the same has remained unchallenged. Once an adverse order is challenged, in the hierarchy of remedies available to the aggrieved persons, the rights of the parties would become final only after the final decision has been rendered in the remedies so provided. During the pendency of such remedial petitions, status quo shall be maintained in order to avoid further complications that may arise out of the adverse orders passed against the aggrieved persons. The interim orders on the remedies provided by the statutes are meant to preserve the rights of the parties till the lis is finally adjudicated. In the instant case, the assignment of the petitioners in respect of the lands has been cancelled and the appeal filed by them has been taken on file by the first respondent. The first respondent therefore, ought to have considered the stay application having regard to the balance of convenience and irreparable injury that may be caused to the petitioners if the stay is not granted. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the first respondent has not recorded any reasons to reject the stay application. Having regard to the fact that the rights of the petitioners with reference to their assignment, have not been finally decided and the appeal is still pending, it is appropriate that status quo as to the rights of the parties be preserved during the pendency of the appeal. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order insofar as rejecting the application for stay is set aside and the orders of the second respondent in D Dis (E4)/12390/09 dated 30.07.2010 shall remain suspended until the appeal is disposed of. The first respondent is at liberty to dispose of the appeal as early as possible. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms. No costs. _______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J 23rd November, 2010. PNV