THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1940 of 2009 ORDER: The brother of the husband of the petitioner was assigned an extent of Acs.2.00 of land in survey No.869/32 of Chinnuru Village and Mandal, Adilabad District, when they were joint. It is stated that in the family partition, one acre of land was allotted to the husband of the petitioner, and after his death, she succeeded to the same. It is also stated that the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are trying to dispossess her, even while the patta is subsisting. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner was issued a pattadar pass book by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chennur Mandal, depicting that she is the pattadar of one acre of land in survey No.869/32. As long as the title vests in the petitioner, she cannot be dispossessed from the land, without following the procedure prescribed by law. The Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over one acre of land in survey No.869/32 of Chennur Village and Mandal, Adilabad District, without following the procedure prescribed by law. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.05.02.2009. Note: Furnish C.C. in two days. (B/o) GJ ORDER: The Mandal Revenue Officer and Recording Authority, Balanagar, the second respondent, passed an order on 09.02.2007, carrying out certain amendments in the revenue records, in relation to the lands in survey Nos.223, 233, 234, 344 and 366 of Ranga Reddyguda Village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. This was in pursuance of an order of remand passed by the Joint Collector. Aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent, the third respondent, who is said to be founder trustee of Sri Laxminarayanaswamy Temple, Ranga Reddyguda, filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, the first respondent. An application was also filed for stay. The first respondent passed an order of stay on 24.04.2007. Thereafter, he vacated it through order, dated 05.12.2008. The third order was passed on 15.12.2008 cancelling the order, dated 05.12.2008. The petitioners challenge the order, dated 15.12.2008. The petitioners contend that once the first respondent had vacated the stay through his order, dated 05.12.2008, he has no jurisdiction to deal with the application for stay any longer and that no notice was issued to them before the impugned order was passed. Heard Sri T.Suryakaran Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri P.Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the third respondent. The first respondent has chosen to be as cryptic as possible, while passing orders, at various stages. Initially, he passed an ex parte order of stay on 24.04.2007, at the instance of the third respondent. Through his order, dated 05.12.2008, he vacated the stay. It is so cryptic that there is not even mention of the factum of any application for vacating the stay being filed, much less any arguments being advanced by the concerned parties. However, he has chosen to cancel the order, dated 05.12.2008 on an application filed by the third respondent. Here again, he maintained the same brevity and did not chose to issue notice to the petitioners herein. Therefore, the whole exercise is not only contrary to law, but also in a very bad taste. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed, setting aside the order, dated 15.12.2008 as well as the one, dated 05.12.2008. The first respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioners as well as the third respondent, hear their arguments and pass a reasoned order, within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, either confirming, or vacating the stay granted by him on 24.04.2007. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.04.02.2009. GJ