IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE WRIT APPEL No.1275 of 2009 Between: Shabahat Hussain Khan @ Mohammed Afsar, … Appellant And: Durgam Jayant & 18 others. …Respondents. Counsel for the Appellant: Party-in-person. Counsel for respondents 1 to 16: Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao Counsel for respondents 17 to 19: GP for Revenue This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1275 of 2009 JUDGMENT:- (Per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This writ appeal arises out of order dated 25.06.2009 in WVMP.No.1589 of 2009 in WPMP.No.3877 of 2009 in WP.No.3027 of 2009. Respondent No.4 in the writ petition and the vacate stay petitioner in WVMP is the appellant. We have heard the appellant, who appeared in party-in-person and Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 16 - writ petitioners. Having carefully gone through the order of the learned Single Judge, we are entirely in agreement with the reasoning and the conclusion of the learned Single Judge arrived at in the order under appeal. The appellant, however, expressed the apprehension that the findings rendered in the order under appeal may eventually cause prejudice to his interest in the main writ petition. To alley his apprehension, we make it clear that the observations contained in the order of the learned Single Judge were confined to disposal of the vacate stay application only and that they will not have any bearing on the disposal of the main writ petition. The appellant further stated that during the pendeny of the writ petition, the revisional authority, namely; the Joint Collector, Medak District, may go ahead with the revision, pending before him. Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 16 – writ petitioners, submitted that since his clients filed the writ petition against the very initiation of the revisional proceedings before respondent No.18, he has no objection for stay of the said proceedings. In view of the submissions of the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 16, we make it clear that respondent No.18 will not proceed with the revision pending before him till the disposal of WP.No.3027 of 2009. Subject to the above observations, the order of the learned Single Judge is confirmed and the writ appeal is disposed of. The appellant is permitted to move an application for early hearing of the writ petition. We are sure that the learned Single Judge will sympathetically consider the request of the appellant for an early hearing, if such an application is made by him. As a sequel to disposal of the writ appeal, WAMP.No.2672 of 2009 filed by the appellant for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 04.11.2009 ES