IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 28545 of 2008 Between: Kundrapu Chinnam Naidu S/o.China Babu Residing at Parawada Village & Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Tahsildar, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 3 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam. 4 K.Sanyasaiah S/o.Chinna Sanyasaiah Vennelapalem Village, Visakhapatnam 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 an order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents without conducting the proper enquiry in to the issue and issuing the Proceedings No. 107/07/SA dated 17.11.2007 by the 1st and 2nd respondents, is illegal, arbitrary, illegal and against the law and consequently set aside the same and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.RAJA GOPALA RAO HANUMANTHU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 28545 of 2008 O R D E R : The Tahsildar, Paravada Mandal-the third respondent herein by order dated 17-11-2007, passed under Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, cancelled the assignment made in favour of one Kothurthi Sanyasayya with immediate effect. The petitioner herein, who claims to have purchased the said assigned land from the said assignee, preferred an appeal before the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer along with an application for stay. It is alleged that in spite of several requests, the second respondent has not passed any orders either on his appeal or on the application for stay and in the meanwhile, the third respondent is taking steps to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question pursuant to the order dated 17-11-2007. Hence, the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. Since the statutory appeal is admittedly pending before the second respondent, I deem it appropriate to protect the possession of the petitioner till the said appeal is considered and decided on merits. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to dispose of the appeal pending on his file preferred against the order of the third respondent dated 17-11-2007, following due process of law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the order of the third respondent dated 17-11-2007 shall not be given effect to. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 31-12-2008 KLP