IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3690 of 2009 Between: Devagiri Akki Reddy S/o.Late Shiva Reddy R/o.Gowrigudem H/o.Siddaram village Sattupalli Mandal, Khammam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildar, Sattupally Mandal, Khammam District 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam Khammam District 3 The District Collector, Khammam district,Khammam ..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 appropriate writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent herein in not staying and setting aside the order in Rc.No.B-4015/192/2007 dated 25.8.2007 of the 1st respondent herein in the Appeal filed by the petitioner on 17.10.2008 against the order of the 1st respondent herein before him as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of AP Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act and also violative of Articles, 14,21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction to the respondents herein to stay the operation of the said order of the 1st respondent herein. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.RAJAMALLA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: The Tahsildar, Sattupalli Mandal, Khammam District, the first respondent herein, passed an order, dated 25-08-2007, in exercise of power under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “the Act”), directing resumption of land in-part of Survey No.39 of Siddaram Revenue Village. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam District, the second respondent herein, together with an application for stay. His grievance is that the second respondent has not passed any orders on the application for stay and that in the meanwhile, the first respondent is taking steps to resume the land. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner availed the remedy of appeal provided for under Section 4-A of the Act, aggrieved by order dated 25-08-2007 passed by the first respondent. In case the petitioner is dispossessed and the land is resumed to Government, even while the appeal is pending, nothing remains to be decided. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the order dated 25-08-2007, passed by the first respondent, shall remain stayed till the second respondent disposes of the appeal preferred by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated 25th February, 2009 vrn