THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33471 of 2010 Date: 30.12.2010 Between : K. Harinathareddy and others. … Petitioners And The Commissioner (Appeals), O/o. Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of A.P., Nampally, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33471 of 2010 ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. This writ petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under: “…….Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent in not disposing of the stay petition filed along with Revision Petition No.V3/55/2010 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in Sy.No.246 extent of Ac.41.61 cents situated in Tiruchanur village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupati, Chittoor District…….” 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the appellate authority under the A.P. Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for brevity “the Act”), passed an order in proceedings No.R.Dis.G/1668/2009, dated 27.11.2009, rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioners. As against the said order, the petitioners have filed a revision under Section 14-A of the Act before the 1st respondent-Commissioner of Appeals, O/o. the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, who is the revisional authority. When the matter was posted on 28.12.2010, it was adjourned to 22.2.2011. 4. In this writ petition, the petitioners seek a direction for disposal of the stay petition filed along with the revision petition. It is also submitted that all through the petitioners are having interim orders in their favour and they are in continuous possession of the land in question. 5. A perusal of the order, dated 27.11.2009, passed by the 2nd respondent-appellate authority itself discloses that as against the said orders, revision lies before the 1st respondent- Commissioner of Appeals under Section 14-A of the Act. 6. Inasmuch as it is stated that the revision was already filed as early as in the month of February, 2010, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent-revisional authority to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today. The respondents are further directed to maintain status quo obtaining as on today with regard to possession of the land in question till disposal of the revision petition by the 1st respondent. 7. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of, at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY 30.12.2010. NOTE: Issue C.C. in two days. (B/O) Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33471 of 2010 30.12.2010 (Msr)