THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.18932 of 2009 DATED: 09.09.2009 Between: Guntipalli Rajaiah. .. Petitioner. And The District Collector, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District, and others. .. Respondents. ORDER: It appears, the petitioner was assigned Naddinala land to an extent of Ac.1.20 gts. situated at Husnabad Mandal, Karimnagar District, vide final patta certificate in File No.B/1703/99/2003 dated 30.05.2003, issued by the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Husnabad, Karimnagar District. According to the petitioner, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property from the date of assignment. While that being so, a notice dated 09.06.2007 was issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar, directing the petitioner to be present before him on 28.06.2008 at 3.00 p.m., for the purpose of enquiry initiated on the application submitted by some third party, whereunder it was stated that the petitioner has managed the officials and got patta certificate in respect of Shikam/Naddinala land and, as such, requested to take necessary action. The petitioner contends that pursuant to the said notice, he participated in the enquiry and produced the original patta granted in his favour for verification and, thereafter, no notice of any kind was issued to him, but however, surprisingly, the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar, issued proceedings dated 12.12.2008, cancelling the patta certificate in File No.B/1703/99/2003, issued by the 3rd respondent in favour of the petitioner, and ordering the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Husnabad, Karimnagar District, to resume the subject land, which is under occupation of the petitioner, by evicting him, into Government custody. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal, along with stay application, before the 1st respondent-District Collector, Karimnagar. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the appeal filed by him before the 1st respondent against the orders of the 2nd respondent is taken up on file, till date no orders are passed therein or even on the stay application, and further the respondents are trying to dispossess him from the aforesaid land. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, the 1st respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal purported to have been filed by the petitioner against the orders dated 12.12.2008 of the 2nd respondent, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. However, till disposal of the said appeal, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo obtaining as on today as to the possession of the petitioner over the subject land. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 09.09.2009 v v