IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 10926 of 2009 Between: M.Laxmikantaiaiah S/oNarayana …petitioner Vs. The Government of A.P. Revenue(Ass.V) Department, rep. By its Principal Secretary and another … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P. NO.10926 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Assignment for the 1st respondent and Sri B.Adinarayana, the learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd respondent who appeared and contested the matter at the stage of admission. The writ petition is directed against the order of interim stay passed by the 1st respondent in Memo No.18057/Asn.V(1)/2009 dated 22-05- 2009 in a revision purportedly under Section.4-B of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 entertained by the 1st respondent against the order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy-1 in proceedings No.E1/7121/2007 dated 24-11-2008 whereby and whereunder the Joint Collector had allowed the revision preferred by the petitioner against an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District, confirming the order of the primary authority, who had passed an order for resumption of the land claimed to be in the ownership and possession of the petitioner, having purchased the same from the predecessor-in-title, tracing the original title to one Babu Rao Joshi who was assigned the land by the Government on his status as a freedom fighter. In the writ petition it is pleaded and the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the contention, that the primary order of the MRO was passed without notice and opportunity either to the original assignee or to the successors in interest including the petitioner. Be that as it may. The order impugned is an interim order passed by the 1st respondent pending a revision purportedly under Section 4-B of the Act. In the circumstances, the exercise of the revisional power under Section 4-B not being patently without jurisdiction cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Insofar as the ad interim order, which is the subject matter of this writ petition is concerned, interest of justice are adequately protected if it is directed that status quo as to the property be maintained pending final disposal of the revision by the 1st respondent. The parties herein are accordingly directed not to alter the features of the land in question or alienate the same in any manner whatsoever. Staus quo as regards possession of the land shall also be maintained pending disposal of the revision. None of the observations made herein are intended to be a reflection on the merits of the case. The 1st respondent will dispose of the revision in accordance with law on the basis of the material on record, as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is disposed of as above at the stage of admission. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 2nd JUNE 2009 Note: Issue CC As soon as Possible. (B/O) *TSNR