IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 3643 of 2009 Between: 1 G.Venu Gopal Rao S/o.Late Damodhar Rao R/o.Katkur Village Bheemadevarapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District. 2 G.Ram Chander Rao S/o.Late Damodhar Rao R/o.Katkur Village Bheemadevarapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District. 3 G.Ashok Rao S/o.Late Damodhar Rao R/o.Katkur Village Bheemadevarapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District. 4 G.Akkanna Rao S/o.Late Damodhar Rao R/o.Katkur Village Bheemadevarapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District. 5 G.Madhava Rao S/o.Late Damodhar Rao R/o.Katkur Village Bheemadevarapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector & Magistrate (Joint Collector) Karimnagar District, Karimnagar. 2 The Special Deputy Collector (LASRSP FFC) Unit-1, LMD Colony, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 3 Paladugula Kumara Swamy S/o.Late P.Raghavulu R/o.Katkur Village, Bheemadevarapally Mandal, Karimnagar District. .....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 appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.1 in not considering to pass any order in Stay Petition pending disposal of Revision Petition being D/782/2009 is arbitrary and illegal and a direction may be issued to pass an order pending disposal of Revision Petition and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The singular grievance in this writ petition is that the 1st respondent has not disposed of either the substantive revision preferred by the petitioners under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the 1971 Act’) or his application for interim stay of the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 12-1-2009 against which the revision is preferred, despite the revision having been preferred on 2-2-2009 and in the context of the fact that the 2nd respondent Special Deputy Collector (LASRSP FFC) is proceeding to pay compensation to the 3rd respondent for the lands acquired, of which there is a dispute whether the petitioners or the 3rd respondent are the owners thereof. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 and 2 and Mrs. P.Aruna for the 3rd respondent. It is incumbent on the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the Revision or the interim application within a reasonable time. As the petitioners state to have filed the revision on 2-2-2009 along with an application for interim relief therein, the 1st respondent should expeditiously consider either disposing of the main revision or the application for interim relief without undue procrastination. In the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to expeditiously and in any event within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, consider and dispose of the application filed by the petitioners for interim relief along with the revision dated 2-2-2009 filed under Section 9 of the 1971 Act. No costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 9th July, 2009. GRR