IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 23077 of 2008 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that his father was assigned land admeasuring Ac.2.00 in survey No.385/1 of Koratla Village in Karimnagar District and after his death, the petitioner succeeded to the said property and his name was also entered in the revenue records and the authorities have also issued pattadar pass books in his favour. He is also paying land shisth to the respondents. While so, the 2nd respondent – Tahsildar, Koratla Mandal without looking into the facts of the case and without giving any opportunity of hearing passed orders on 19.3.2008 directing the 3rd respondent – Village Revenue Oﬃcer to take possession of the assigned land, which were served on the petitioner on 1.10.2008. Aggrieved by the said order, it is stated that the petitioners preferred statutory appeal before the 1st respondent – Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Jagtial Division under Section 4-A of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 on 17.10.2008 along with an application to suspend the operation of the order and to direct respondents 2 and 3 not to dispossess them until the disposal of the appeal. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the appeal is entertained by the 1st respondent, no orders are passed either on the stay application or in the appeal and taking advantage of the situation, the authorities are trying to implement the orders passed by the Tahsildar. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and at their request the writ petition is taken up for ﬁnal disposal at the admission stage itself. Admittedly, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the orders passed by the 2nd respondent is still pending consideration before the 1st respondent and no orders are passed either in the appeal or on the stay petition. If the order of the 2nd respondent is not stayed during the pendency of the appeal, the whole cause will become infructuous. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the appeal ﬁled by the petitioner against the orders of the 2nd respondent expeditiously and till then the order dated 19.3.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent shall remain stayed. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.22.10.2008 msv