IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6538 of 2008 Between: Mohd. Ghouse, s/o. of Hyder Ali, Resident of Uddemarry Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Rangareddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahasildar (MRO), Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District, Ghoshamahal, at Hyderabad. .....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 or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus by declaring the of the 1st respondent in threathening to take coercive steps in pursuance of the proceeedings in B/33/2005 dated 20-6-2005, not with standing the pendency of the Appeal No. 1434 of 2007 before the 2nd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent No. 1 not to take any coercive steps in pursuance of the proceedings No. B/330/2005 dated 20-6-2005 of Appeal No. 1434 of 2007, before the 2nd respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 6538 of 2008 Order: As against the order dated 20.06.2005, passed by the 1st respondent, namely the Tahsildar, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, resuming the lands in question, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District, which is registered as Appeal No. 1434 of 2007. While the said appeal is pending, the petitioner states that the respondents are seeking to assign the land in question to some third parties. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that the land in question had already been assigned to third parties. However, having regard to the fact that the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending consideration before the 2nd respondent, I am not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of the matter, and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The 2nd respondent, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District, is directed to consider and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, expeditiously. Any assignment of the land in question made by the respondents in favour of third parties shall be subject to the outcome of the appeal. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 27.03.2008 Ksr/Nsr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}