IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27189 of 2008 Between: Rajula Gangu Bai and others. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer Jagtial Division Jagtial, Karimnagar District. 2 The Tahsildar Koratla Mandal Koratla, Karimnagar 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 to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in not passing any orders in stay petition which is preferred along with the Appeal No. A/2018/2008 which is filed against the orders passed by the respondent No.2 in proceedings No. B/21/07, praying to suspend the said orders thereby not to dispossess the petitioners from their land an extent of land admeasuring 4 Acres.00 guntas in Sy.No. 1305 situated at Korutla proper and Mandal, Karimnagar Dist. until the disposal of the appeal, as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of the Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the constitution of India and violative of the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Consequently direct the respondent No.1 to suspend the order passed by the respondent No.2 in proceedings No. B/21/07, thereby direct the respondents No.1 and 2 not to dispossess the petitioners from their land an extent of admeasuring 4 Acres. 00 guntas in Sy.No. 1305 situated at Korutla Proper and Mandal, Karimnagar District. Counsel for the Petitioners:SRI K.VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27189 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners allegedly purchased land in an extent of Acs.4.00 in survey No.1305 of Koratla in Karimnagar District, sometime ago. The Tahsildar, second respondent, initiated action and passed orders under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, for resumption of the land. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal on 25.11.2008 and also filed an application for stay of the proceedings of the Tahsildar. Alleging that the same has not been attended to immediately by the appellate authority, namely, Revenue Divisional Officer, the present writ petition is filed. In Mir Fazle Ali Nasiri v. State of A.P. and others[1], this Court has considered the question whether the statutory quasi judicial authority can be directed to exercise their powers within a stipulated time, and holding that such mandamus cannot be issued, held as under. That being the legal position, the time limit within which a statutory authority should act or due to act not being mandatory, it would be impermissible for this Court in every case to issue a direction as a matter of course to public authorities to dispose of application/appeal/revision, within a specified time. It can always be argued that, such a direction would amount to introducing a requirement in the statute, which the legislature itself did not provide for. Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that as and when such a writ petition is filed seeking a direction – seemingly innocuous – to dispose of the matter expeditiously, such a direction cannot ordinarily be given unless, of course, there is inordinate delay in discharging public duties which itself amount to arbitrariness. In this case, petitioners admittedly filed appeal on 25.11.2008 and even before the same could be taken up for consideration by the Revenue Divisional Officer, they filed the present writ petition. In such a case, writ petition would not lie. However, this Court observes that first respondent may pass appropriate orders immediately. The Writ Petition, with the above observation, is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 15.12.2008 Note: Issue C.C by 16.12.2008. B/o. vs To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KBJ} [1] 2007 (2) ALD 3