IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9161 of 2009 Between: Mohd. Shabeer S/o. M.A. Hafeez R/o. H.No.5-9-1049, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer Shamshabad Mandal Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer East Division Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 or order more in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent No. 2 for not passing any order in Appeal No.D/345/09 as illegal and arbitrary and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.GOVIND REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KBJ} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.9161 of 2009 ORDER: The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad Mandal, the 1st respondent herein, passed an order dated 27-11-2006 under Sections 3 and 4 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’) directing resumption of various extents of lands. The petitioner filed W.P.No.545 of 2009 challenging the same. This Court disposed of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy of appeal under Section 4-B of the Act. The petitioner states that the appeal has since been presented before the 2nd respondent together with an application for stay. His grievance is that the 2nd respondent has not passed any orders in the stay petition, and that in the meanwhile, the 1st respondent is trying to dispossess the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner has already availed the remedy of appeal feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27-11-2006 passed by the 1st respondent. If the petitioner is dispossessed from the land even while the appeal is pending, nothing remains to be decided. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land during the pendency of the appeal before the 2nd respondent. No costs. ___________________ 29th April 2009 KVR