IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 8094 of 2009 Between: P.Prasada Reddy, S/o. Krishna Reddy, R/o. 19-12-385, Bairagipatteda, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by the District Collector, Chittor District, Chittoor. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor Revenue Division, Chittoor 3 The Tahsildar, Vadamalpet Mandal, Chittoor District. 4 C.Rajendra, S/o. Sambasivaiah, R/o. D.No.150, 5th Cross, Kesavaianagunta, Tirupati, Chittoor District. .....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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the orders in Roc.G/963/2008, dated 08-04-2009, in what was said to be an appeal preferred by the 4th respondent, ostensibly invoking section 5 (5) of Act 26 of 1971, staying, ex parte and without notice to the petitioner herein, for a period of two months the operation of the pattadar pass books & Title Deeds issued, among others, to the petitioner, as being illegal, arbitrary and being against the provisions of the Act 26 of 1971, apart from being violativeof the principles of natural justice, as well as Articles 14 and 300- A of the Constitution of India, and consequently quash the same, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.VASANTHA LAKSHMI BAVARAJU Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No.8094 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against an ad interim order dated 08-04-2009 of the 2nd respondent. The impugned order was passed on an appeal preferred by the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent preferred the appeal against the order of 3rd respondent granting pattadar passbooks and title deeds to the petitioner. It is surprising to note that as though the 2nd respondent granted ad interim stay of the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour inter alia of the petitioner, the ad interim order is not addressed for communication to the petitioner. It is merely communicated to the 4th respondent-appellant. This is a perversity of quasi-judicial discipline and needs to be deprecated. Insofar as the merits of the writ petition are concerned, what is challenged is an order of interim stay granted by the 2nd respondent for a period of two months. It is needless to mention that as the petitioner is the affected party and the title deeds and pattadar passbooks issued in favour of the petitioner are the subject matter of the appeal before the 2nd respondent and at the instance of the 4th respondent, the petitioner must be heard and is entitled to participate fully and reasonably in the appeal proceedings. The 2nd respondent failed to provide opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the appeal proceedings and eventually passed the order. It requires to be noticed that on the 4th respondent’s appeal, the 2nd respondent by a proceeding dated 08-04- 2009 had also called for the remarks of the 3rd respondent, received a report from the said respondent, relied on the said report and passed the impugned order even without notice or opportunity to the petitioner in whose favour Pattedar Passbook and title deed were issued earlier by the 3rd respondent. Such an appellate process is perverse. However, since the impugned order purports to be an order of stay of operation of the pattedar pass book and title deed issued to the respondent including the petitioner herein, for a period of two months, this Court is not inclined to set aside the interim order. On the aforesaid analysis, granting liberty to the petitioner to move the 2nd respondent for expeditious vacation of the ad interim stay, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent. No costs. ______________________ 11th June 2009 KVR