THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.3919 of 2010 Dated: 22.02.2010 Between: Smt.J.Hemalatha. .. Petitioner. And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents. ORDER: It appears, the petitioner is the owner of the undivided land to an extent of Ac.1.00 in Sy.Nos.540 and 542 situated at Kodurupadu village, Nellore District, having purchased the same from one K.Chittemma in the year 1991, by way of registered sale deed, and since then, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land. While so, on the allegations of the petitioner contravening the provisions of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’), the 4th respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Nellore, after issuing notice to the petitioner, ultimately, passed orders in Rc.No.B.1458/2004, dated 25.09.2004, resuming the land admeasuring Ac.1.00 in S.No.542 of Kodurpadu village of Nellore Rural Mandal, to the Government and directing the Mandal Revenue Inspector to take possession of the same. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal before the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore, and the same was dismissed on 31.07.2005 in D.Dis.No.1911/2005. Challenging the same, a revision petition was filed before the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, Nellore District, who by his order dated 16.07.2009 in D.Dis.No.4963/2008 dismissed the revision, confirming the orders dated 31.07.2005 of the 3rd respondent. Against the said orders, a revision is filed, along with stay petition, before the 1st respondent-Government of Andhra Pradesh, and till date no orders are passed either in the stay petition or the revision petition is taken up for hearing. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has been in possession of the subject property till date, and the 4th respondent, taking advantage of non-granting of any stay orders in the revision petition, is contemplating to resume her lands to the Government by evicting her. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the appeal and the revision petition filed before the 3rd and 2nd respondents respectively, the petitioner was granted stay, and by virtue of those stay orders, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land, whereas in the revision petition filed before the 1st respondent, no stay order has been granted and, therefore, the petitioner apprehends her dispossession from her lands. Since it is revealed that the petitioner was granted stay in the appeal and the revision petition preferred before the 3rd and 2nd respondents respectively, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to be in possession and enjoyment of the subject property during pendency of the revision petition filed before the 1st respondent. In view of above, during pendency of the revision petition filed before the 1st respondent, the respondents are directed not to give effect to the orders dated 25.09.2004 in Rc.B.1458/04 passed by the 4th respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Nellore, as also the orders dated 31.07.2005 and 16.07.2009 passed by the 3rd and 2nd respondents respectively. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 22.02.2010 v v