The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.22423 of 2010 Date: 08-09-2010 Between: Kondapally Raghuram Reddy ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector, Warangal District, Warangal and 4 others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.D.Venkat Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.4: ----- The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order, dated 23-07-2010, of respondent No.3. The petitioner claims to be the owner of Ac.5-00 guntas of land in Survey No.492/B of Kampally Village of Kuravi Mandal. He holds a mining lease over the said land. Respondent No.4 filed an appeal against the order of respondent No.3 mutating the name of the petitioner in the revenue record. The said appeal was purportedly filed under Section 5-B of the A.P.Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. By order, dated 22-06- 2010, respondent No.2 allowed the said appeal and directed respondent No.3 to withdraw the NOC granted by him in favour of the petitioner for the purpose of granting of mining lease over the land in question. The said order is questioned in this Writ Petition. According to the petitioner, he has filed a revision petition against order, dated 22-06-2010, on 09-07-2010 and that along with the said revision, he has also filed an application for stay before respondent No.1. While the said revision and stay application are pending, and no orders were passed by respondent No.1, respondent No.3 passed the impugned order withdrawing the NOC. In my opinion, when the petitioner has availed the statutory remedy of revision and his stay application is pending before the revisional authority, respondent No.3 ought to have awaited the result of the stay application if not the revision. Therefore, in my opinion, respondent No.3 has acted in haste in withdrawing the NOC, which has a far- reaching consequence of preventing the petitioner from carrying on the mining operations. In view of the same, it is directed that order passed by respondent No.3 vide proceedings in Rc.No.B/940/2010, dated 23-07-2010, shall not be given effect to, till the petitioner’s stay application is considered and disposed of by respondent No.1. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.28586 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 8th September, 2010 lur