IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.32992 of 2011 BETWEEN S. Ramasubba Reddy. ... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its District Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa District and three others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. V.R. REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE MR. C. VENKATA YADAV for R4 The Court made the following order: ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Mr. C. Venkata Yadav, learned counsel, appearing for fourth respondent. 2. An order dated 02.08.2008 was passed by the third respondent – Tahsildar against the petitioner under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, which was straight away questioned by the writ petitioner in WP.No.17208 of 2008 before this Court. Since appellate remedy is available against the said order, this Court by order dated 05.08.2011 relegated the petitioner to the appellate remedy and to enable the petitioner to avail such remedy, status quo for a period of two months was granted. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred an appeal within the time permitted by this Court before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu – second respondent herein on 16.09.2011. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the appeal is pending, the present grievance of the petitioner is that the order passed by the primary authority under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act is sought to be enforced against the petitioner by dispossessing him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the appeal is filed along with application for stay, no orders are passed on the same in spite of petitioner pursuing the hearing at least to the extent of application for stay pending appeal. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue fairly submits that to the extent of considering and disposing of application for stay there should be no difficulty for the second respondent. 4. In view of the above, instead of entertaining this writ petition it is disposed of with the following direction. “The second respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer shall consider the appeal and/or application for stay filed by the petitioner on 16.09.2011 against the order of the Tahsildar, Pulivendula dated 02.08.2008 and even if the disposal of appeal requires some more time, at least pass appropriate order in accordance with law on the application for stay within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the petitioner seriously apprehends threat of dispossession, status quo, as on today, shall be maintained for a period of two (2) weeks.” There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 15, 2011 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 17.12.2011. (B/o) DSK