IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5143 of 2009 Between: Polu Rama Devi W/o. Raj Kumar R/o. H.No. 2-5-557, Vidyaranyapuri Hanamkonda, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Revenue Divisional Officer Warangal District. 2 Tahsildar Hanamkonda, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the Order in file No. B/2407/2007 dt. 3-1-2008 passed by the second Respondent in Resuming the land of the petitioner in Sy.No. 181 to an extent of Ac 2.15 gts and also the action of the first respondent in not granting stay of the order in file NO. B/2407 /2007 dt. 3-1-2008 pending appeal is highly arbitrary bad and illegal. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.5143 of 2009 ORDER: The Tahsildar, Hanamkonda, Warangal District, the second respondent herein, initiated proceedings under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’) against the petitioner in respect of land to an extent of Acs.2.15 guntas in Survye No.181 of Kumarpally Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District. Ultimately, through an order, dated 03.01.2008, the second respondent directed resumption of the land to the Government. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent together with an application for stay. Her grievance is that no orders have been passed on the application for stay so far and the second respondent is trying to evict her in the meanwhile. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner availed the remedy of appeal feeling aggrieved by the order, dated 03.01.2008, passed by the second respondent under the Act. In case the petitioner is evicted even while the appeal is pending, nothing remains to be decided. The interests of the State can be protected by directing that the petitioner shall not alienate the land or bring about any construction during the pendency of the appeal. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the order, dated 03.01.2008, passed by the second respondent shall remain stayed during the pedency of the appeal before the first respondent, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not alter the nature of the land or alienate the same to third parties. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.Narasimha Reddy, J Dt.16.03.2009 VGB