IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 21705 of 2008 Between: Godike Hussain S/o.Chotaji R/o.H.No.3-6-102,Vivekananda Road Koratla Proper and Mandal, Karimnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Oficer (R.D), Jagtial, Karimnagar District 2 The Tahsildar, Koratla Mandal, Koratla Karimnagar 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandmaus or any other writ declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in not passing any order in stay petition ﬁled by the petitioner in Appeal dated 25.9.2008 which is preferred challenging the orders passed by the respondent No.2 in proceedings No.B/279/2008 is arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of Articles, 14,19,and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of principles of natural justice consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land an extent of 1 Acre.00 guntas in SY.No.478/3 situated at Koratla ,Karimnagar District until the disposal of the appeal. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R:- This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer in not passing any order in a petition for stay ﬁled by the petitioner in Appeal dated 25.9.2008 which was preferred challenging the order dated 19.3.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, as arbitrary an illegal and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land in an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas in S.No.478/3 situated in Koratla, Karimnagar District. The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, with an intention to deprive his statutory rights by way of dispossessing him from the land in question, without issuing prior notice to him, has passed the impugned order dated 19.3.2008 stating that necessary changes in the revenue records have to be eﬀected and the land in question shall be reserved for public purpose to cater the public needs, since Koratla village has been upgraded as Municipality and rapidly increasing. That though the petitioner preferred an appeal along with application for stay before the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer on 25.9.2008 challenging the order dated 19.3.2008, the 1st respondent has neither considered the appeal nor passed any orders on the stay application. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, and both of them agreed to the disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: The 1st respondent is directed to consider and dispose of either the main appeal or the application for stay, and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. Till such time, status-quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by the parties. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 29th September, 2008 bcj