IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 28540 of 2008 Between: 1 Bandaru Sanyasamma W/o. Sanyasi Naidu R/o. Vennelapalem Village, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District 2 Bandaru Sanyasamma W/o. Pothi Naidu R/o. Vennelapalem Village, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam 2 The Tahsildar, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District 3 The District Collector ,Visakhapatnam . 4 Smt. Kothurthi Lakshmi and Others .....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 dt. 3-8-2007 by the 1st and 2nd respondents is illegal, arbitrary, illegal and against the law and consequently set aside the same. 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. 28540 of 2008 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the first respondent in considering the appeal preferred by the petitioners as against the order dated 03-08-2007 passed by the second respondent cancelling the assignment under Section 4(1) (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition and Transfers) Act, 1977. It is stated by the petitioners that though the appeal was preferred long back in the year 2007, first respondent failed to consider the appeal and no orders have been passed even on their application for stay. It is alleged that taking advantage of the pendency of the proceedings, the second respondent is trying to dispossess the petitioners from the land in question. Hence, the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and keeping in view the statutory appeal is pending on the file of the first respondent, without going into the merits, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the appeal pending on his file 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, status quo obtaining as on today as to the nature and possession of the land in question shall be maintained. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 30-12-2008 KLP