THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20823 of 2006 Dated:03.08.2010 Between: K.Muthyalappa .. Petitioner And The Special Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by K.Muthyalappa seeking mandamus declaring the action of the Special Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad – first respondent herein, in not passing any orders in the revision petition filed by him as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner claims that an extent of Acs.05.00 in Survey No.24-1 of Kakkalapally Village, Anantapur District, has been assigned to him vide proceedings in D.Dis.No.180/70, dated 08.05.1967. He also obtained pattedar pass book from the Mandal Revenue Officer (hereafter called as MRO). He made the assigned land fit for cultivation by removing the rocks and bushes therein. While so, the Tahsildar, Anantapur District, passed orders resuming the land of the Government vide proceedings in Rc.No.492/79, dated 08.09.1979, on the ground that non-fulfillment of Condition Nos.2, 7 and 8 of D-Form Patta. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer (hereafter called as RDO), Anantapur District. The appellate authority confirmed the resumption order on 13.08.1981 vide D.Dis.No.442/79. Assailing the order passed by the appellate authority, he filed revision before the Commissioner of Land Revenue and Administration, Hyderabad. The Commissioner of Land Revenue remanded the matter to the District Collector with a direction to the RDO, Ananatapur, to conduct local enquiry after giving notice to the parties and pass appropriate orders vide proceedings CRPT/139/83, dated 15.02.1983. The Joint Collector in his proceedings in D.Dis.No.5598/83/A4, dated 29.06.1983, cancelled the original assignment made in his favour and ordered for resumption of the land. While so, the members of AIYF, Kakkalapally gave a representation stating that the petitioner who was assigned the land in Survey No.24 converted the same into plots and is selling at Rs.30,000/- per plot and requested to take necessary action. The MRO, Anantapur, without giving any notice to the petitioner, had issued notice to third parties, who are alleged to be the purchasers, and vide Rc.No.348/2003/B, dated 14.03.2005, directed the MRI to take possession of the land and restore the same to Government. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the RDO, Anantapur, and the RDO without considering the grounds, dismissed the appeal vide D.Dis.No.D2/677/2005, dated 25.02.2006 and confirmed the order of the MRO, dated 14.03.2006. Aggrieved by the orders of the RDO, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Anantapur District. The Joint Collector admitted the appeal, but no order came to be passed on the stay application. The petitioner herein carried the matter by filing W.P.No.4800 of 2006. The Writ Petition came to be disposed of on 13.03.2006 with a direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the appeal, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six weeks. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 30.08.2006. Assailing the order passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner filed a revision before the Government under Section 4-B of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 on 13.09.2006. He also filed an application seeking suspension of the order passed by the Joint Collector, Anantapur District. Since no orders have been passed on the suspension application, the petitioner approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 04.10.2006. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the revision filed by the petitioner is pending before the first respondent and, therefore, necessary direction is required to the first respondent to consider the revision and pass appropriate orders. In view of the limited grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the first respondent to consider the revision filed by the petitioner assailing the order passed by the second respondent and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be status quo obtain as on this day, with regard to the possession of the land, till the disposal of the revision filed by the petitioner before the first respondent. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 03.08.2010 Note:- Furnish C.C. by one week. (B/o) KH