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.32987 of 2011 BETWEEN Kakuturu Peda Ragaiah. ... PETITIONER AND The Joint Collector, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District and five others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. Ch. RAMAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE for R1 to R3 GP FOR HOME for R4 The Court made the following order: ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. Pattadar Pass Book of the petitioner was cancelled by order dated 30.09.2010 passed by the Joint Collector – first respondent herein. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court in WP.No.2516 of 2011, which was disposed of by order dated 08.02.2011 permitting the petitioner to avail alternative remedy by filing a revision and the last para of the operative portion of the order is as follows: “In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of being not maintainable. However, the petitioner may avail his alternative remedy by filing a revision. If revision is filed, then the competent authority shall consider the application for condonation of delay sympathetically. The petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is a landless person. Therefore, he shall not be dispossessed from his land for a period of two (2) weeks. No costs.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter the petitioner has preferred a revision before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, who under his proceedings dated -.04.2011 has called for remarks from the District Collector as well as the records. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he had filed a revision along with an application for stay, since the remarks were called for from the District Collector, neither the revision is being entertained so far nor the application for stay is taken up for consideration and in the meanwhile, respondents 5 and 6 herein with the help of respondent No.3 are trying to interfere with petitioner’s possession. 3. The present writ petition filed seeking relief to that extent, pending revision petition, therefore, does not deserve to be entertained except by relegating the petitioner to the remedy of revision, which he has already invoked. This Court while disposing of the writ petition aforesaid has already observed that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land for a period of two weeks to enable him to file revision petition. Thereafter, petitioner has filed a revision and the same is pending with the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. 4. In view of the above, instead of entertaining this writ petition it is disposed of with the following direction. “Petitioner is granted liberty to move the revisional authority for hearing of the revision petition or at least application for stay pending revision expeditiously within a week from today. If the petitioner moves any such application, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration would certainly entertain the same and pass appropriate orders at least to the extent of application for stay.” 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