IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 15265 of 1999 Between: M.Ramchandraiah S/o.Late M.Narayana R/o.Kottalapalli (v) Ramasamudram Cuddapah district ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Land Revenue Hyderabad 2 The District Collector Cuddapah Dist. 3 The Joint Collector Cuddapah 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer Rajampet Cuddapah Dist. 5 The Mandal Revenue Officer Pullampet (m) Cuddapah Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to To issue an order or writ one in the nature of Collector, Cuddapah in proceedings No.D.Dis.(E3) Dated 29-5-99 confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet in Ref.B.1147/97, dated 22-9-97 cancelling the over an extent of 5.48 acres in Sy.No.595/1 of Ananthaiahgaripalli village,pullampet Mandal, Cuddapah Dist as arbitrary, illegal,unconstitutional being violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as are deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.N.SHOBA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 15265 OF 1999 ORDER: Questioning the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, as confirmed by the order of the Joint Collector, the petitioners preferred a revision to the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Hyderabad. They obtained an order of status- quo before this Court even while the matter was pending before the Commissioner. The interim order passed by this Court on 22.07.1999 granting status-quo has been subsisting for more than a decade. It is not known whether the revision petition filed before the 1st respondent is still pending or not. Needless to state that since the order of status-quo has been in force for more than 9 years, the writ petition can itself be disposed of directing the 1st respondent to pass final orders in the revision petition filed by the petitioner herein within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall be given an opportunity of being heard before final orders are passed by the 1st respondent. It is but appropriate that the order of status-quo passed on 22.07.1999 is continued for a further period of three months or till the disposal of the revision whichever is earlier. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________ 12-08-2008 GS