IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1237 OF 2009 Dt.22.10.2009 Between: Sri Sadi Venkanna @ Venkaiah … Appellant And Smt. Saragada Thotamma and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1237 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) Feeling aggrieved by order dt.26.11.2008 in W.V.M.P. No.3556 of 2008 in W.P.M.P. No.23983 of 2008 in W.P. No.18427 of 2008, the vacate stay petitioner filed the present appeal. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, detailed facts need not be recorded. It will suffice to note that respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed W.P. No.18427 of 2008 assailing the order dt.4.8.2008 passed by respondent No.4 in the appeal filed by the appellant under the provisions of Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, “the Act”). On 22.8.2008, this Court granted interim stay of the said order of respondent No.4. The appellant filed a counter affidavit and an application for vacating the interim order. In the counter affidavit, the appellant inter alia contended in paragraph 10 that in pursuance of the order of respondent No.4, which was impugned in the Writ Petition, respondent No.5 granted pattadar pass books and title deeds to the appellant. The learned Single Judge, however, under the impugned order made the earlier interim order dt.22.8.2008 absolute. At the hearing, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the specific plea of the appellant that the order of respondent No.4 was given effect to by respondent No.5, which was raised in the counter affidavit of the appellant, was not adverted to by the learned Single Judge. The learned Counsel submitted that as the order of respondent No.4 was implemented even before the interim order was granted by this Court on 22.8.2008, the stay application has become infructuous. Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 – writ petitioners, however, submitted that as the order passed by respondent No.4 was contrary to the provisions of the Act and the procedure stipulated in the Rules made thereunder, the learned Single Judge was justified in making the interim order absolute. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge impugned in this Writ Appeal shows that no reasons for the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the order passed by respondent No.4 under Section 5(5) of the Act was beyond his purview and powers, have been recorded. We also notice from the order of the learned Single Judge that the plea of the appellant that the order of respondent No.4 was already implemented by respondent No.5 has not been referred to and no finding thereon has been rendered. In our view, the said fact has a bearing on the outcome of the application for vacating the stay granted in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 – writ petitioners. Therefore, we are of the view that it would be in the interest of justice that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration of the vacate stay application filed by the appellant. The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Appeal, W.A.M.P. No.2591 of 2009, filed by the appellant for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22.10.2009 bnr