IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 14818 of 2009 Between: J.Nehru S/o. Thimmaraju R/o. Purushothapalli (V), Nidadavole Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Joint Commissioner, MZ-1, Endowments, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, East Godavari District. 3 Feeding Choultry Rajanagaram (V) and Mandal East Godavari District, Rep. by its Executive Officer. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ order or appeal declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not considering petitioner application for granting stay in M.A.No. 35/2009 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and also Arts. 1991) (g) and 300-A of Constitution of India and for a consequential order directing the respondents, pending appeal before the 1st respondent, not to dispossess the petitioner herein from his lawful possession and enjoyment of the land measuring Ac. 4.90 cents ( Dry land ) in R.S. No. 245 of Tyajampudi Village, Devarapalli Mandal, West Godavari District. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that he is a landless poor person and claims to be the tenant in respect of the lands in an extent of Ac.4.90 cents in R.S.No.245 situated in Tyajampudi village, Devarapalli Mandal, West Godavari District, belonging to the 3rd respondent-Choultry. When the 3rd respondent tried to dispossess him from the lands in question without following due procedure under law, he filed W.P. No. 9598 of 2004 and obtained interim stay of dispossession. According to him, the 3rd respondent in the counter filed by him in the said writ petition admitted that the land in question, is up to an extent of Ac.4.90 cents and it is dry land. This Court, while disposing of the writ petition by order dated 2.8.2004, directed the 2nd respondent to ascertain whether the petitioner is a small farmer or not, consider the representation dated 17.6.2005 and pass appropriate orders thereon. In pursuance of the orders of this Court, the petitioner contends that the 2nd respondent conducted inquiry in M.A. No. 344 of 2004 and passed an erroneous order holding that he is cultivating an extent of Ac.27.05 cents of wet-land and he is not a tenant and accordingly rejected his request. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal in M.A. No.210 of 2004, and the 1st respondent dismissed the same observing that the petitioner is the tenant of the wet land, as such, he is not entitled to the benefits. Challenging the same, the petitioner states that he filed W.P. No.10980 of 2005, and this Court remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent with a direction to conduct fresh inquiry in view of the two contradicting statements made by the authorities. The 2nd respondent, after conducting fresh enquiry, by order dated 30.6.2009 came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not at all in possession of the lands as a tenant but his father was the cultivating tenant. A copy of the said order was served on the petitioner on 17.07.2009. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal in M.A.No.35 of 2009 on 20.07.2009 along with an application for stay of that order before the 1st respondent. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent is not disposing of the application for stay, and in the meantime, the 3rd respondent taking advantage of this situation, is making hectic efforts to put the lands in question to public auction. Hence, he filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions to the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application for stay and pending disposal of the appeal the respondents may be directed not to dispossess the petitioner from his lawful possession and enjoyment of the lands in question, otherwise, he would suffer irreparable loss and injury. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. According to the own admission of the petitioner, on 20.07.2009, he filed the appeal in M.A. No.35 of 2009 against the order dated 30.06.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent along with the application for stay of that order on the file of the 1st respondent, and it is too premature to say that the 1st respondent will not consider and pass orders on the application for stay. However, having regard to the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, that the 3rd respondent taking advantage of the fact that the 1st respondent in the appeal filed by the petitioner, has not granted stay of the order passed by the 2nd respondent, is making hectic efforts to dispossess the petitioner from his lands, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 1st respondent-Regional Joint Commissioner is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application for stay filed by the petitioner along with the appeal in M.A.No.35 of 2009, in accordance with law, expeditiously, and in any case not later than one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to observe that till the application for stay is considered and appropriate orders are passed thereon, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo obtaining as on today.” With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 24th July, 2009 bcj