IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1093 OF 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 05/08/2009 in WP NO : 15953 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Mohd Mohsin Ali Mazhar and three others ... APPELLANTS AND P. Laxmipathi Goud and four others ... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Vedula Venkataramana Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri T. Amarnath Goud Thodupunuri Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 5: Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This writ appeal arises out of order dated 05-08-2009 in Writ Petition No. 15953 of 2009, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 at the admission stage. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that in respect of Acs.16.25 guntas of land comprised in Survey Nos.106/1 to 106/4 of Mangalapally Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, proceedings under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, ‘the Act’) were initiated and orders were passed by the competent authority (Mandal Revenue Officer) directing resumption of the land. The appellants herein filed appeal before respondent No.4 under Section 4-A of the Act. The said appeal was dismissed through order dated 28-07-2003 which was confirmed by respondent No.3 vide his order dated 22-05-2004. In the revision petition filed by the appellants, the Government remanded the matter to respondent No.3. By order dated 14-11-2008, respondent No. 3 set aside the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer by holding that the land in dispute was not of the Government. Respondent No.1 filed revision petition before respondent No.2 – State Government against the said order. By order dated 03-07-2009, respondent No.2 granted stay of order of respondent No.3. However, the said order was vacated by respondent No.2 by order dated 30-07-2009. Thereupon respondent No.1 filed Writ Peittion No. 15953 of 2009, wherein it was contended that respondent No.2 vacated the order of stay passed on 03-07-2009 without notice to him. The learned single Judge, at the admission stage, and without notice to the appellants herein who were parties to the revision petition allowed the writ peititon and suspended order dated 30- 07-2009 passed by respondent No.2 vacating the stay order. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed the present writ appeal. At the hearing, Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned single Judge has not issued notices to the appellants who were impleaded as respondent Nos.5 to 8 in the writ petition and restoration of interim stay in the revision petition pending before respondent No.2 adversely affected the interests of the appellants. The learned counsel further stated that as a fact, the revision petition filed by respondent No.1 was in suppression of order dated 16-02-2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2825 of 2009, wherein order dated 14-11-2008 passed by respondent No.3 was challenged and the said challenge was rejected by the learned single Judge by the above mentioned order. The learned counsel therefore stated that the very revision filed by respondent No.1 before respondent No.2 itself was in the teeth of the said order of this Court which has attained finality. The fact that no notice was given to the appellants before the writ petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge is conceded by Sri T. Amarnath Goud, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 – writ petitioner. In our considered view, as restoration of interim stay in the revision pending before respondent No.2 adversely affected the interests of the appellants, they ought to have been given notice by the learned single Judge before finally disposing of the writ petition. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order of the learned single Judge and restore the writ petition to file for being disposed of after hearing the appellants and respondent No.1. We give liberty to the appellants to raise in the writ petition, the contention relating to maintainability of the revision petition by respondent No. 1 before respondent No.2 in the face of order dated 16-02-2009 in Writ Petition No. 2825 of 2009. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the appeal as allowed, WAMP No. 2197 of 2009 filed by the appellants for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th August, 2009 ks