IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17851 of 2008 Between: Irlapati Ramakoteswara Rao S/o. Raghavaiah Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple, Vankayalapadu, Edalapadu Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsaraopet, Guntur District. 2 Joint Collector, Guntur District. 3 Vankayalapati Prema Kumar S/o. Narsimha Rao R/o. Vankayalapadu Village, Edlapadu Mandal, Guntur District. 4 Vankayalapati Balakrishna S/o. Ramakrishna Sarma R/o. Vankayalapadu Village, Edlapadu Mandal, Guntur District. 5 Vankayalapati Devendranath Sharma S/o. Ramakrishna Sarma R/o. Vankayalapadu Village, Edlapadu Mandal, Guntur District. 6 Vankayalapati Ullaki S/o. Venkateswara Rao R/o. Vankayalapadu Village, Edlapadu Mandal, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.V.N.BHUPAL Counsel for respondents 1 & 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 set aside order dated 25-03-2008 passed by respondent No.1. Heard Sri K.V.N.Bhupal, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record. The dispute pertains to Acs.6.75 cents of land in Survey Nos.41, 223/1, 223/3 of Vankayalapadu Village, Edlapadu Mandal, Guntur District. The pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner were cancelled by respondent No.1 by the impugned proceedings. The petitioner stated that he filed appeal before respondent No.2 on 18-04-2008 along with an application for stay. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the said appeal along with the stay application is pending, for about 4 months, no order has been passed therein and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have now been unduly interfering with the possession of the above mentioned land. Since the revision (the petitioner styled the revision as appeal before respondent No.2) filed by the petitioner is pending before respondent No.2, I am not inclined to express any opinion on merits and interests of justice would be met if respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the revision petition expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the revision petition said to have been filed by the petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from today. Till the disposal of the revision petition, status quo, as on today, shall be maintained with respect to the lands in question. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP Nos. 23233 and 23234 of 2008 are dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 18th August, 2008 vrn