IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4088 of 2009 Between: Renukuntla Komuraiah S/o. Madanaiah R/o. Bhupalapally Village & Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sub-Collector The Appellate Authority Under the Andhra Pradesh Rights Mulugu, Warangal District. 2 The Tahsildar / Mandal Revenue Officer Bhupalapally Mandal, Warangal District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer Manthini Karimnagar District. 4 Burra Bondaiah S/o. Gouraiah R/o. Akudariwada, Bhupalapally Village & Mandal, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring inaction of the respondent No.1 in granting in not disposing the interim application of petitioner herein in appeal SR No.384 of 2009 filed on 5-2-2009 on the file of the 1st respondent is illegal, arbitrary, null and void and against the provisions of 5-B Under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land & Pattadar Books Act, 1971 as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.PULLA RAO YELLANKI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.4088 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner presented an appeal under Section 5-B of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) feeling aggrieved by the proceedings, dated 21.09.2002, of the second respondent, under Section 5A of the Act. He is stated to have filed an application for stay also. His grievance is that no orders have been passed by the first respondent so far. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner presented the appeal as recently as on 05.02.2009, that too, against the order which was passed way back in the year 2002. By any standard, it cannot be said that there is any delay on the part of the second respondent. Not only the record needs to be called for but also notice is to be issued to the affected parties. However, though the disposal of the appeal may take some time, the first respondent can consider the feasibility of passing the orders in the application for stay, after issuing notice to the affected parties, since the appeal is filed after lapse of several years. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders in the application for stay filed by the petitioner in the appeal filed against the order, dated 21.09.2002, passed by the second respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, duly issuing notice to the affected parties. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.Narasimha Reddy, J Dt.02.03.2009 Note: Issue CC in three days. (b/o) VGB