THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.Nos.22428 AND 22430 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: The relief sought for in these two Writ Petitions is to declare the inaction of the 3rd respondent, in not passing any orders on the stay petition filed by the petitioner in the revision petition filed before the 3rd respondent against the order of the 4th respondent dated 31.12.2010, as arbitrary and illegal. It would suffice, for the disposal of these writ petitions, if the facts in W.P. No.22428 of 2011 are noted. The petitioner claims to have purchased an extent of Ac.10.50 cts of land by registered sale deeds in the years 2004 and 2005. The 5th respondent passed an order under the A.P. Assigned Lands (P.O.T) Act, 1977 directing resumption of the assigned land after evicting the petitioner from the land in question. The petitioner claims to have preferred an appeal before the 4th respondent and, since the appeal was neither numbered nor entertained, they filed W.P. No.25188 of 2010 before this Court. The said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider the appeal and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months. Thereafter the 4th respondent, by order dated 31.12.2010, dismissed the petitioner’s appeal aggrieved by which the petitioner filed W.P. No.4317 of 2011. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by order dated 23.02.2011 holding that the petitioner had the remedy of filing a revision petition before the 3rd respondent, but had instead filed a Writ Petition before this Court. The petitioner preferred a revision petition on 16.03.2011. It is his case that, though the revision was filed four months ago along with an application seeking stay, no orders were passed by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner asserts that he had appeared before the revisional authority on 30.07.2011 and, that despite elaborate arguments made on the petitioner’s behalf, the 3rd respondent was not inclined to pass any orders in the stay petition. The inaction of the 3rd respondent is in question in this Writ Petition. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments), on instructions, would submit that the revision petition itself was finally heard on 30.07.2011 and that final orders would be passed in the revision petition itself within four weeks, instead of any orders being passed in the stay petition. She would further submit that the respondents have not taken any action to evict the petitioner till date, and any action, which may be required, would be taken only after final orders are passed in the revision petition filed by the petitioner. Recording the submission of the Learned Government Pleader, and in as much as the petitioner’s apprehension of being evicted during the pendency of the revision petition is misplaced, these Writ Petition are disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to pass final orders in the revision petition filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today, and not to evict him till then. It is made clear that, after the revision petition is disposed of, it would be open to the respondents, if they so choose, to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law. Both the Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 16.08.2011 MRKR