IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.22079 OF 2010 DATED:09.09.2010 Between: Kosuru Bangar Raju and others … Petitioners And The Chief Commissioner Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.22079 OF 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is a part of the long drawn litigation between the petitioners on the one side and the Forest Department on the other. The order granting ryotwari pattas as far back as 17.08.1956 by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Nuzvid, has been set aside by second respondent vide his order dated 05-08-02010. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed a revision petition under Section 7(d) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 before first respondent. The petitioners have also moved first respondent for grant of stay of the order of second respondent. Through his order dated 28-8-2010, first respondent while posting the revision petition for hearing on 09.12.2010 declined to grant stay of the order of second respondent. At the hearing, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners have established long standing possession both prior and subsequent to the grant of ryotwari pattas in their favour and that the second respondent taking erroneous view of the entire case, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the third respondent passed more than five decades back. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that having admitted the revision petition there was no justification for the first respondent to reject the petitioners’ stay application. Learned Government Pleader for Forests strenuously contended that the third respondent has granted pattas after the entire land was notified as reserve forest and therefore the second respondent has rightly set aside the said order. He further submitted that the first respondent having exercised his discretion declined to grant stay and therefore this Court may not interfere with such exercise of discretion by the first respondent. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel and perused the record. The question whether the petitioners are entitled to ryotwari pattas or not cannot be adjudicated in this writ petition as the revision petition filed by the petitioners is pending before the first respondent. The relevant considerations for grant of an interim order by the Court or quasi judicial authority are – prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury and public interest. The fact that the first respondent has admitted the revision petition shows existence of prima facie case. With regard to the other parameters referred to above, the petitioners were granted ryotwari pattas more than fifty years back and evidently on the basis of the said pattas they were in possession. The said pattas having been disturbed only recently by the order of the second respondent on 05.8.2010, I find balance of convenience in favour of the petitioners to protect their interest till disposal of the revision petition. I am, therefore, of the opinion that by denying them the interim order, their interest would suffer. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside. In order to balance the interest of the parties, I direct status quo as on today to be maintained by both the parties till disposal of the revision petition by the first respondent. The first respondent is directed to dispose of the revision petition after hearing both the parties within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. _______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 09.09.2010 bnr