IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 12677 of 2008 Between: Shri Mukku Thirupathi Reddy S/o.Venkata Rami Reddy R/o.Bayyaram Village, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paloncha, Khammam District. 2 The Tahsildar, Manugur, Khammam District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Inspector-II, Manugur Mandal, Khammam 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the Proceedings dt. 25.01.2008 in Rc.No.B/457/2007 passed by the respondent No.1 and declaring the in action of the respondent No.1 in not passing any order in appeal filed by petitioner on 10.6.2008 is against the principles of natural justice, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional or pass any other appropriate order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.RAJASEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and at their request the matter is taken up for hearing at the admission stage The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of Ac.4.20 guntas of land in Sy.No.453 of Chikkudugunta Village, Munuguru, Khammam District having inherited the same from his fore fathers, who purchased the said land from the original pattedars about 50 years back. While so, the Tahsildar, Manuguru issued proceedings dated 25.1.2008 directing the Village Revenue Officer, Ramanujavaram and Mandal Revenue Inspector-II of Manuguru to evict the petitioner from the said land. The case of the petitioner is that though the 2nd respondent claimed in the said order that notices in Form No.7 and 6 of A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905 were issued, in fact, no such notices were received by him and, therefore, against the said order, he preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer on 10.6.2008 along with a petition seeking suspension of the impugned order as also to condone the delay in preferring the appeal. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he preferred the appeal on 10.6.2008, no orders are passed either on the stay petition or in the appeal. Since the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending consideration before the appellate authority and no orders were passed on the stay petition, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the orders of the Tahsildar in accordance with law expeditiously and till such time status quo obtaining as on today with regard to possession of the land shall be maintained. N.V.RAMANA,J Dt.19.6.2008 Note: Operative portion by wire at parties cost. msv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paloncha, Khammam District. 2 The Tahsildar, Manugur, Khammam District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Inspector-II, Manugur Mandal, Khammam District. 4 2CCs to Govt.Pleader for Revenue, High Court of A.P. Hyd. 5 2CD copies