IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 12748 of 2008 Between: G.M.Visweswara Aradhaya S/o.Paramswaraiah R/o.Amarapuram village and Mandal, Anantapur District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penugonda Anantapur District 3 The Tahasildar/M.R.O., Amarapuram Mandal, Anantapur District 4 Vijayalakshmi D/o.Nagendrappa, W/o.N.Venkateswarlu r/o.Jeenugariveedhi, Amarapuram village & Mandal Anantapur District 5 T.H.Rangamma W/o.C.Doddaiah R/o.Pulikunta village, Amarapuram village and Mandal Anantapur 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 writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not granting stay in Revision filed by petitioner in Rc/(E2)/3112/2008 dated 7.5.2008 against the orders of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings issued in Dis.No.D/73/2002 dated 10.3.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, and without issuing notice before resumption. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SRINIVAS Counsel for Respondent Nos 1to3.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Order: It is the case of the petitioner that his father was assigned an extent of ac.4.02 cents of land in Sy.No.210/2 of Amarapuram Village by the 3rd respondent on 17.10.1962. After his death, the land was resumed vide proceedings dated 20.3.1992. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the said resumption orders were set aside vide proceedings dated 18.7.1994 on the ground that the resumption orders were not preceded by any notice to the petitioner. Ultimately, the land was once again assigned in favour of respondents 4 and 5 without any notice to the petitioner. That action of the authorities was also challenged in appeal before the 2nd respondent by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent confirmed the orders of the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent along with a stay application. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the appeal was entertained, the stay application was rejected by the 1st respondent without assigning any reasons even though he is in possession of the land. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and at their request the matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. Admittedly, against the orders passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same is pending adjudication. If the orders of the 2nd respondent are not stayed during the pendency of the appeal, virtually, the appeal of the petitioner becomes infructuous. Hence, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner expeditiously and till such time, status quo obtaining as on today with regard to possession of the disputed land shall be maintained. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.19.6.2008 msv ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Joint Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penugonda Anantapur District 3 The Tahasildar/M.R.O., Amarapuram Mandal, Anantapur District 4 2CCs to the Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (OUT). 5 2CD copies