HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23408 of 2010 Date 21.09.2010 Between: Sannala Brahmarao. ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of A.P. rep. By the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar Mandal, Machilipatnam, Krishna District and another. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty Counsel for Respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23408 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the order dated 30.08.2010, whereby the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar Mandal, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, declined to grant stay of operation of the order dated 30.08.2010 passed by respondent No.2. The facts in brief, which have led to the filing of the Writ Petition, are that the petitioner’s grandfather had purchased an extent of Ac.0.60 cents of land under a registered sale deed dated 17.06.1953 for valuable consideration from Sri Satyanarayana S/o. Bapanaiah. The vendor of the petitioner’s grandfather has earlier purchased the said land under a registered sale deed dated 10.05.1953 from the original assignee by name Khuyana Bibi Saheb. Similarly, an extent of Ac.1.00 was purchased by the petitioner’s grandfather under a registered sale deed dated 11.02.1959 from one Jaina Bibi. The dispute presently is concerned with Ac.0.80 cents out of a total extent of Ac.1.60 cents. Respondent No.2 initiated proceedings under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’) for resumption of the above- mentioned land. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice issued by respondent No.2, he passed the order dated 30.08.2010 ordering that the total extent of Ac.4.09 cents in R.S.No.111/2 of Bantumilli Village shall be resumed including the buildings constructed in an extent of Ac.0.80 cents in the said survey number by the petitioner. The Mandal Revenue Inspector was directed to take possession of the said extent including the buildings constructed thereon after evicting the petitioner and the other occupants. The petitioner evidently filed an appeal on the next day of respondent No.2 passing the said order and he has also moved an application for stay. Under the impugned order signed on 08.09.2010, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar Mandal, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, (arrayed as respondent No.1 representing the Government of Andhra Pradesh) declined to grant stay on the ground that consequent on the order of the second respondent dated 30.08.2010, the premises was locked and, therefore, the stay application has become infructuous. At the hearing, Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the very initiation of the proceedings under the provisions of the Act itself is totally arbitrary and illegal. He submitted that while the land purchased by the petitioner’s grandfather was assigned as far back as the year 1938, which did not contain any condition of non-alienation, the said land is not liable for resumption under the provisions of the Act. He further submitted that at any rate the land, which was purchased as far back as the year 1953, could not have been resumed after a long lapse of more than 50 years. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has strenuously opposed the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. I have considered the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. In my opinion, as the appeal is pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar Mandal, Machilipatnam, it is not appropriate for me to render conclusive findings. However, prima facie the reason assigned by the appellate authority for declining to grant stay cannot be sustained. Under the Act, an aggrieved party is entitled to file an appeal within a period of 90 days. Evidently, without giving breathing time, respondent No.2 is stated to have locked the premises. This act of respondent No.2 shows his undue haste in somehow taking possession of the property which appears to be in the possession of the petitioner and his ancestors for more than 50 years. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar Mandal, Machilipatnam in iniquitous and he failed to consider the elements of balance of convenience and irreparable injury which are essential requirements for considering an application for granting an interim order pending appeal. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar Mandal, Machilipatnam, Krishna District is set aside. The order dated 30.08.2010 passed by respondent No.2 is suspended. Respondent No.2 is directed to redeliver possession of the property to the petitioner pending appeal. As a sequel to disposal of the main petition, WPMP.No.29943 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:20.09.2010 usd