HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.29469 of 2010 Date : 26-11-2010 Between: Smt.Oleti Chellamma .. Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri P.Panduranga Reddy Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside order dated 15-9-2010 of respondent No.2 to the extent he has rejected the petitioner’s stay application while admitting the appeal filed by her against order dated 30-6-2010 of respondent No.3. I have heard Sri Panduranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments). A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner who is the widow of a freedom fighter was granted D.K.T. patta in respect of Ac.10-00 in Sy.No.735(P) and 752(P) in Karakambadi village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District under freedom fighters quota. By order dated 30-6-2010, respondent No.3 has cancelled the patta on the purported ground that the same was issued without noticing the fact that the lands were reserved for being allotted to a different society. Respondent No.2, while admitting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said cancellation order, has rejected the stay application filed by her. A perusal of this order shows that respondent No.2 has failed to assign any reasons while rejecting the application for stay. The fact that respondent No.2 has admitted the appeal shows that he was satisfied with the prima facie case. Having regard to the undisputed fact that D.K.T. patta was granted in favour of the petitioner as far back as the year 1992 and she has been in possession of the land since then, the elements of balance of convenience and irreparable injury lie in her favour for granting an interim order pending appeal. But, respondent No.2 failed to examine the petitioner’s stay application from this perspective and rejected the same without assigning any reasons. Therefore, the order of respondent No.2 to the extent of rejecting the stay is set-aside. The petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in question till disposal of the appeal by respondent No.2. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. ____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 26-11-2010 AM