IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19260 of 2008 Between: Kanthamma, D/o. late Bal Reddy, R/o. Balbadrayapally Village, Kosgi Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kosgi Mandal, Narayanpet Division, Mahaboobnagar District. 2 The Tahsildar, Kosgi Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. 3 A. Mohan Reddy, S/o. Ella Reddy, r/o. Hanmanpally Village, K Kosgi Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. 4 A. Ranga Reddy, S/o. Ella Reddy, r/o. Hanmanpally Village, K Kosgi Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.RAJAGOPAL REDDY Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in disposing of the appeal ﬁled against order dated 28-06-2008 passed by respondent No.2. Heard Sri P.Rajagopal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 and 2. In the manner in which the writ petition is proposed to be disposed of, I ﬁnd it not necessary to issue notice to respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner ﬁled an appeal before respondent No.1 against order dated 28-06-2008 passed by respondent No.2, whereby he regularized the purported sale transaction in respect of Acs.9.08 guntas in Survey No.266/AA of Bhakthimalla Village, Kosgi Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District in favour of respondents 3 and 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the said appeal was taken on record as A/1593/2008, respondent No.1 has not passed any order on the stay application ﬁled by her. The petitioner apprehended that in pursuance of the order passed by respondent No.2, regularizing the sale transaction in favour of respondents 3 and 4, there is a likelihood of respondent No.2 granting pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of respondents 3 and 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, I am of the view that interests of justice would be met if respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the stay application ﬁled by the petitioner as early as possible. It is represented by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue that respondent No.1 has posted the stay application to 20-09-2008. Respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the stay application on the said date, without any further adjournment. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.25121 of 2008 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 5th September, 2008 Note: Issue CC in three days vrn