IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13962 of 1995 Between: Sake Subbamma, W/o. China Mutyalappa, R/o. Kunuthuru Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District. 4 Harijana Sake Narayana, S/o. Kondanna, R/o. Kunuthuru Village, Dhammavaram Mandal, Ananthapur 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the Joint Collector in Rc.(A6)4966/95 dt.5-6-95 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRI RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 13962 of 1995 15-04-2009 Oral Order: The petitioner assails the order dated 05-06-1995 of the 1st respondent whereby the orders of the 3rd respondent dated 29-12-1993 and 02-07-1994 have been stayed and the 3rd respondent was directed to implement the said orders. The relevant facts are that the agricultural land in survey No.443/9 of an extent of Ac.04-20cents in Kunuthuru village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Ananthapur District was assigned in favour of the 4th respondent by the proceedings dated 31-05-1979. On the ground that the 4th respondent violated the conditions of assignment, the 3rd respondent issued notice to the 4th respondent on 07-08-1993 and on considering the 4th respondent’s response dated 27-08- 1993, the 3rd respondent by orders dated 29-12-1993 cancelled the assignment in favour of the 4th respondent and passed orders of resumption to the State. The land was re-assigned to the writ petitioner by proceedings dated 02-07-1994. Aggrieved by the orders of resumption, the 4th respondent preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent wherein he also challenged the orders of the 3rd respondent dated 02-07-1994 re-assigning the land in favour of the petitioner. The 4th respondent also sought stay before the 2nd respondent of the orders of resumption and re- assignment of land in favour of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent rejected the said application on 18-10-1994. Thereagainst the 4th respondent preferred a revision before the 1st respondent and therein sought stay of the operation of the orders of resumption. The 1st respondent passed the impugned order granting stay of operation of the orders of resumption of the land from the 4th respondent passed by the 3rd respondent on 29-12-1993 and the other order dated 02-07-1994 assigning the land in favour of the petitioner. The 1st respondent in the impugned order also directed the 3rd respondent to implement the stay orders. Since the assignment in favour of the petitioner after assumption of the land from the 4th respondent was made on 02-07-1994, balance of convenience is not in favour of grant of stay of the orders of resumption and it is not proper for the 1st respondent, to have directed the 3rd respondent to act on the orders of stay granted by him which will have the effect of dispossessing the petitioner and handing over the land to the 4th respondent. It requires to be noticed that the assignment was made in favour of the petitioner on account of the fact that her husband was killed on 12-12-1992, in what is asserted to be an act of atrocity against Harijans, to which community the petitioner belongs. In any event, pending disposal of the substantive appeal before the 2nd respondent preferred by the 4th respondent, it is not fair to disturb the status quo regarding possession. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is disposed of directing the official respondents to ensure status quo obtaining as on today in respect of possession of the property in question, while directing the 2nd respondent to expeditiously and in any event within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, consider and dispose of the appeal preferred by the 4th respondent. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 15-04-2009 Pvks