IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 20744 of 2008 Between: Atmakuru Durga Prasad, s/o. Atchutaramaiah R/o.Durgapuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 The Tahasildar (Mandal Revenue Officer) Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to disposes the petitioner from his land admeasuring Ac 0.43 cents and Ac.0.43 cents in R.S.No.897/11 and 897/12 of Nandigama Village and Mandal, Krishna District, even when the appeal ﬁled by the petitioner under Section 4 A(2) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers)Act 1977 is pending before the 1st respondent Collector as the same is arbitrary and illegal and violative of articles 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.20744 of 2008 ORDER: The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that as against the order in RC.A10/2932/07-5, dated 25.06.2008, passed by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Vijayawada, Krishna District, resuming the lands in question to the Government, he ﬁled appeal, along with stay petition, before the 1st respondent-District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam, on 08.09.2008, but so far no orders thereon have been passed. Hence, he ﬁled the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and both of them agreed to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The 1st respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the main appeal preferred by the petitioner against the orders of the 2nd respondent, and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, expeditiously. Till such time, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the lands in question. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA,J 23.09.2008 v v