IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5898 of 2009 Between: Bukke Gopi Naik, S/o. Late Ramala Naik, R/o. M.M.S. Bidiki Village, Chinnakanpalli Post, C.K. Dinne Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its District Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 3 The Tahsildar, C.K. Dinepalli Mandal, Kadapa 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 an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondent NO.2 herein in not disposing off the stay application filed along with the appeal filed under Section 4A of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977j against the orders in R.Dis.B/257/2007 dated 8-6-2007 passed by the 3rd respondent herein as arbitrary, illegal and abdication of the statutory duty cast on him and in violation of the fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to dispose of the appeal forthwith and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.R.REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The Tahsildar, C.K. Dinnepalli Mandal, Kadapa District, the third respondent herein, passed orders dated 8.06.2007 against the petitioner under Section 4 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent together with an application for stay. The grievance of the petitioner is that no orders have been passed on the application for stay and in the meanwhile the third respondent is trying to dispossess him. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner availed the statutory remedy of appeal before the second respondent, against the order of resumption. If the petitioner is evicted from the land even while the appeal is pending, the very purpose of the appeal will be defeated. Hence the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, with a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question during the pendency of the appeal before the second respondent. ______________________ (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) 20th March, 2009 Js.