THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.10025 of 2008 Dated: 21.09.2010 Between : A. Madhava Reddy … Petitioner And 1. Joint Collector, Rangareddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.10025 of 2008 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 6.2.2008 as well as the consequential notice dated 11.4.2008 are arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The material available on record shows that by order dated 6.2.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 32 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, read with Rule 40 of the Rules, the 3rd respondent herein was directed to hand over the possession of the land to an extent of Ac.4.29 guntas and Ac.2.00 guntas situated in Sy.Nos.266 and 267 respectively of Tulekalam Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Rangareddy District to the 4th respondent and four others under a cover of Panchanama duly evicting the occupants therein. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent on 15.3.2008 along with an application for stay. Alleging that the 1st respondent failed to consider the petitioner’s appeal and even his application for stay was not considered and in the meanwhile notice dated 11.4.2008 was issued calling upon the petitioner to hand over the possession of the land to the respondents 4 to 8, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. This Court while directing rule nisi, by order dated 1.5.2008 directed the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders either on the stay petition or in the appeal within a period of 8 weeks, and also directed to maintain status quo till such time. When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is represented by the learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 8 that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has not been decided by the 1st respondent till today. Having regard to the fact that the statutory appeal is pending before the 1st respondent, it is not necessary for this Court to express any opinion on merits. Instead, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal pending on his file against the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 6.2.2008 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Till the appeal is decided, status quo as ordered by this Court on 1.5.2008 shall continue. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 21.09.2010 gbs