IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 24997 of 2008 Between: 1. Yamalapati Venkateswarlu, s/o. Subbaiah, aged 65 years, D.No.42-18, Tangella Khasim Street, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2. Yamalapati China Venkateswarlu, s/o. Subbaiah, aged 58 years, R/o. H.No.42-18, Opp: B.S.Picture Palace, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3. Penumudi Sambaiah, s/o. Raghavaiah, aged 55 years, R/o. Mangamuru Donka, Ongole, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District 2 The Tahasildar, Kothapatnam(M), Prakasam District 3 The Government of A.P rep. by its Prl.Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in not considering the stay petition in Appeal dt 29-10-2008 ﬁled against the orders of the 2nd respondent in RC.No.B47/05 dt 2- 03-2005 (received by the petitioners on 30-09-2008) as illegal arbitrary and violation of Art 14,21 and 300-A of the constitution of India and consequently to direct the to dispossess the petitioners 1to 3from their respective lands admeasuring ac 2.47 cents Ac 2.00 cents and Ac 1.00 cents situated in Sy. No.514/3,598/5 and 598/6 respectively of Aaluru(V) Kothapatnam(M) Prakasam District the statutory appeal before the 1st respondent in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.M.SUDHIR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.24997 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners state that the land in question was assigned to them by the government and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same, and that on coming to know that respondent No.2, namely the Tahsildar, Kothapatnam Mandal, without issuing notice to them, cancelled the assignment made in their favour, they applied for copy of the order under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and after obtaining certiﬁed copy of the same, preferred appeal before respondent No.1, namely the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Ongole, on 30.09.2008, bringing to his notice that respondent No.2 cancelled the assignment made in their favour without notice to them. However, it is the grievance of the petitioners that till date, respondent No. 1 has neither passed any orders on the stay application or in the appeal. Hence, seeks appropriate directions. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: Respondent No.1, namely the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Ongole, is directed to consider and dispose of the appeal ﬁled by the petitioners against the order of respondent No.2, expeditiously. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by the parties. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J 14.11.2008 v v/k s r