IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 4701 of 2008 Between: 1 P. Ramachandra Reddy S/o Errama Reddy r/o Kupparavandlapalle Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor Distrit. 2 P. Dhanamma W/o Muthyala Reddy R/o Kupparavandlapalle Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Joint Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3 The Tahsildar, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. 4 D. Venkatasubbamma W/o Guravaiah Naidu R/o D. No. 7-6-228, Mitta Street, Tirupati Chittoor 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 issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not granting the interim relief pending revision, Roc. E 10/2671/2008 as illegal, unjust arbitrary, void, contrary to law and consequently the respondents be directed not to enforce the orders dt 28- 01-2008 in D. Dis/G/1712/2006 of the 2nd respondent, till the disposal of the revision, and to pass such other and further orders that may be deemed fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.V.MUNI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 4701 of 2008 Order: As against the order dated 28.01.2008, passed by the 2nd respondent, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, the petitioners state that they filed revision petition in Roc.E10/2671/2008, along with application for stay, before the 1st respondent, namely the Joint Collector, Chittoor, on 18.02.2008, but till date neither the revision has been disposed of nor any orders have been passed on the stay application. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and both of them agreed for disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: The 1st respondent, namely the Joint Collector, Chittoor, is directed to consider and dispose of either the main revision petition or the stay application filed by the petitioners, and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a coy of this order. Till such time, the 3rd respondent, namely the Tahsildar is directed not to implement the orders dated 28.01.2008 of the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 05.03.2008 Nsr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}