THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.22581 of 2007 (Dated : 23-08-2010) Between: A.Ramanjaneyulu S/o Bheemappa and another ..Petitioners A n d The Joint Collector& Addl. District Magistrate, Anantapur and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.22581 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by A.Ramanjaneyulu and A.Krishnamurthy assailing the order of the 1st respondent-Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Anantapur dated 30.10.2006 granting police protection to the respondents 3 to 5 in respect of Survey No.492/3 admeasuring Ac.3-36 cents, Sy.No.492/3 admeasuring Ac.1-60 cents and Sy.No.495/1 admeasuring Ac.5-00 cents in Bommajjapalli village, Kundirpi Mandal, Anantapur District. 2. Background facts, in a nutshell, are:- The petitioners herein are brothers. They came to be assignees of land admeasuring Ac.4-96 cents in Survey No.492/2 and Ac.5.00 in Sy.No.495/1 in the year 1958. The Mandal Revenue Officer resumed the land and re-assigned in favour of respondents 3 to 5. The order of resumption has been challenged by the petitioners by filing an appeal. The Revenue Divisional Officer allowed the appeal and set aside the order of resumption passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer . Thereafter, respondents 3 to 5 filed revision before the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate , Anantapur. Pending the revision, they also moved an application seeking police protection. The Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, by order dated 30.10.2006 allowed the application and granted police protection to the respondents 3 to 5. The order granting police protection to the respondents 3 to 5 is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Rule nisi came to be issued on 25.10.2007. An order of interim suspension came to be issued on the even date, vide W.P.M.P.No.29340 of 2008. The respondents 3 to 5 entered appearance and filed W.V.M.P.No.2288 of 2007 with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 25.10.2007. 4. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner ad learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that respondents 3 to 5 filed a revision before the 1st respondent and the same is being hotly contested and while so, the 1st respondent without putting on notice to the petitioners herein proceeded to grant police protection, by order dated 30.10.2006 and since the said order is in violation of principles of natural justice, the same is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 5 submits that the orders impugned in the writ petition came to be passed since the writ petitioners failed to cooperate for early disposal of the revision before the Joint Collector, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to contend that the order granting police protection is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 8. Learned counsel refers paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit in support of the order impugned in the writ petition. Para 7 of the counter affidavit needs to be noted and it reads thus:- “ I submit that the 1st respondent herein after hearing passed an equitable order giving protection to us against the possession directing the 2nd respondent herein to take action and report compliance in his Proceedings Rc.No.E1/6781/2002, dt.30-10-2006 and revision is posted to 25-11-2006 for final hearing. As per the orders of the 1st respondent the 2nd respondent herein made physical verification and enquiry and requested the SHO Kundirpi to provide police protection to me as per the Joint Collector, Anantaur orders through his Lr.Rc.No.473/2007, dt.06-06-2007. I submit that the orders of the 1st respondent dt.30-10- 2006 was also communicated to the petitioners herein I submit that nearly in or about one year the petitioners herein approached this Hon’ble Court by filing the present writ petition and obtained interim direction in WPMP 29340 of 2007, dt.25-10-2007. I submit that the 2nd respondent in his letter dated 06-6-2007 it is specifically stated that I have been in possession and enjoyment of the land in Sy.No.492-2 an extent of Ac.3.36 cents of Kundirpi village. I submit that I filed suit and also obtained permanent injunction in O.S.No.255/96, dt.05-5-1999 and the same is subsisting against the 1st petitioner and Sri Hanumantappa.” 9. A fact remains that the writ petitioner succeeded in the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and consequently, resumption orders came to be set aside. The respondents 3 to 5 filed revision against the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in resuming the land. It appears the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer has not been kept under suspension by the Joint Collector. Without keeping the order under suspension, granting police protection to the respondents 3 to 5 amounts to allowing the party to be in occupation contrary to the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 10. In that view of the matter, I find that the impugned order in the writ petition is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is hereby set aside The 1st respondent is directed to dispose of the revision as expeditiously as possible. The petitioners have to extend their cooperation for disposal of the revision. In the event of the petitioners avoiding hearing of the revision, 1st respondent is at liberty to pass appropriate orders on the application being moved by the respondents 3 to 5. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt. 23-08-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.22581 of 2007 (Dated : 23-08-2010)