IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 23483 of 2007 Between: M/s.Rama Krishna Poultry Complex, Vemulapalli H/o Dwarapudi, Mandapeta Mandal, E.G.District represented by its Managing Partner N.Rama Krishna Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND 1 the District Collector, East Godavari at Kakinada. 2 the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3 The Tahsildar, Mandapeta, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in taking steps toevict the petitioner firm from the land of an extent of ac.5.09 cents in S.No.349/2, an extent of ac.5.14 cents in S.No.350/3 and an extent of ac.2.58 cents in S.No.351/5 of Vemulapalli Village, H/o Dwarapudi, Mandapeta Mandal, East Godavari District vide notice bearing No.Ref.A/526/96, dated 22-10-2007 of the 3rd respondent even during the pendency of the Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner to the 1st respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the said land, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.E.MADAN MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 23483 of 2007 Order: As against the eviction notice dated 22.10.2007, issued by the 3rd respondent, namely the Tahsildar, Mandapeta, East Godavari District, directing them to evict the lands in question, the petitioner-Firm states that they filed revision before the 1st respondent, namely the District Collector, East Godavari, at Kakinada. While the said revision is pending, the petitioner states that the respondents are trying to evict them from the lands in question. Despite granting sufficient time, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has not obtained any instructions in the matter so far. However, since the revision filed by the petitioner is said to be pending consideration before the 1st respondent, without keeping the writ petition pending, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The 1st respondent, namely the District Collector, East Godavari, at Kakinada, is directed to consider and dispose of the revision filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, expeditiously. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 18.06.2008 Ksr/Nsr