THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.28464 of 2010 Date : 16-11-2010 Between : Smt.S.Noorjahan s/o.S.Ansar .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri A.V. Sivaiah Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not passing order on revision petition filed against order dated 30-7-2010 of respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri A.V. Sivaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) representing the respondents. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of Ac.3-54 cents out of Ac.7.67 cents in Sy.No.16 of Bodu Malluvaripalle village, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District, having purchased the same through different registered sale deeds in the years 1993 and 1994. The petitioner has traced the transactions pertaining to these lands right to the year 1922. However, on the ground that the lands purchased by the petitioner are assigned lands, an order of resumption was passed by respondent No.4. The appeal filed against the said order by the petitioner having been dismissed, he has filed revision petition before respondent No.1. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.1 in passing order on the petitioner’s application filed along with the revision petition on 29-9-2010, he filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing Sri A.V. Sivaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed before the court a copy of the proceeding dated 8- 11-2010 of respondent No.1 whereby it has admitted the revision petition. Since no reference to the stay application has been found in the proceeding, this Court has directed the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) to seek instructions on the status of the stay application. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that no order has been passed on the stay application so far, as instructions have been called for from the subordinate officers by respondent No.1. In my opinion, the failure of respondent No.1 to pass immediate order on the stay application either granting or rejecting, results in frustration of the very purpose for which the legal remedies are provided. The power vested in respondent No.1 is meant to be used in a proper manner. There is no gain saying the fact that an application for stay involves utmost urgency. Such an application deserves to be considered with all earnestness and an appropriate order is passed without causing much delay, lest the cause on which the application for stay is filed will be rendered infructuous. Though the petitioner is stated to have filed revision petition and the stay application on 29-9-2010, respondent No.1 has not passed any order on the stay application despite lapse of 1½ months. This delay on the part of respondent No.1 constitutes patent arbitrariness. Respondent No.1 is therefore directed to dispose of the petitioner’s stay application within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such disposal, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the property in question. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J, Date: 16-11-2010 AM