IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3602 of 2009 Between: Pothuganti Papaiah, S/o. Late Sudi Venkaiah, R/o. Satamrai Village, Shashabad Mandal, R.R. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakadi-ka-pool, Hyderabad. 2 The Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal, Shamshabad, R.R. District. 3 Vinod Bai, S/o. Purshotham Bai, R/o. Satamrai Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 Mukesh, S/o. Purshotham Bai, R/o. Satamrai Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy 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, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondent No. 1 to pass appropriate orders in the petition filed under section 151 of C.P.C. in the Revision dt. 6-2-2009 filed under section 9 of A.P. Rights in Land & Patedar Pass Book Act 1971 R/w Rule 15 of A.P. Rights in Land & Pattedar Pass Book Rules 1989 immediately/urgently and consequently declare the inaction of the respondent No. 1 in passing the interim orders in the Appeal filed under Section 9 of A.P. Rights in Land & Pattedar Pass Book Act 1971 R/w Rule 14 of A.P. Rights in Land & Pattedar Pass Book Rules 1989 immediately as bad in law and violative of principles of natural justice, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SUDHAKAR REDDY & NEERAJA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner, felt aggrieved by an order dated 21-12-2007, passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad Mandal, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District, the second respondent herein, filed a revision under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”), before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the first respondent herein. He has also filed an application for stay. His grievance is that the first respondent has not passed any order in the application for stay so far and respondents 3 and 4 may alienate the properties in the meanwhile. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner has availed the statutory remedy of revision before the first respondent, against the order dated 21-12-2007, passed by the second respondent. The interest of the petitioner needs to be protected till the first respondent disposes of the application for stay. Respondents 3 and 4 may put forward their contentions as and when the application is taken up for hearing. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that status quo, obtaining as on today, vis-à-vis the properties covered by the order, dated 21-12-2007, passed by the second respondent, shall remain till the first respondent passes orders on the application for stay filed by the petitioner in the revision. The first respondent is directed to hear the petitioner as well as respondents 3 and 4 before any orders are passed in the stay application. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated 25th February, 2009 Note: Furnish C.C in three (3) days vrn