IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 20599 of 2008 Between: Vishnuvardhan Reddy, S/o. Venkata Subba Reddy, R/o. Vallur Village and Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 3 N. Lakshumma, W/o. N. Subba Reddy, R/o. Kopparthy Village, C.K. Dinne Mandal, Kadapa 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action o the respondents particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly the 1st respondent in not passing the orders in the interlocutory application ﬁled along with the revision under section 9 of the AP Records of Rights in Land Act 1971 by the petitioner against the orders of the 2nd respondent passed in his Ref.G/669/2007 dated 25-8-2007 event after one year as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and dilatory and against the statutory provisions and consequently direct the 1st respondent to pass orders in the interlocutory application ﬁled along with the revision under section 9 of the AP Records of Rights in Land Act 1971 by the petitioner against the orders of the 2nd respondent passed in his Ref.G/669/2007 dated 25-8-2007 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: The petitioner states that as against the proceedings dated 25-08-2007 of the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Kadapa, deleting the entries relating to his lands admeasuring Ac.1.03 cents and Ac.1.22 cents in Sy. Nos. 568/1 and 568/2 respectively from the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in his favour, he preferred an appeal along with stay application before the ﬁrst respondent-Joint Collector. The grievance of the petitioner is that though one year has elapsed since the date of ﬁling of the appeal, the ﬁrst respondent-Joint Collector, Kadapa, has not passed any orders thereon so far, and pending disposal of the said appeal, the respondents are trying to implement the orders of the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Kadapa, dated 25-08-2007. Hence the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Both the counsel agreed to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The ﬁrst respondent-Joint Collector, Kadapa, is directed to consider and dispose of either the appeal or the stay application, ﬁled by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. Till then, status quo obtaining an on today shall be maintained by the parties. No order as to costs. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________ N.V.RAMANA,J Dt:22-09-2008 usd To 1 The Joint Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 3 Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 4 Two CD copies.