THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.18877 of 2009 DATED: 09.09.2009 Between: Ahmed Khan and others. .. Petitioners. And The Commissioner (Appeals), Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad, And others. .. Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.18877 of 2009 ORDER: According to the petitioners, Chandanagar was a Jagir village, and after the abolition of Jagirs, one Noor Khan @ Sher Khan, who is the father of petitioners 1 and 2 and the grandfather of petitioners 3 and 4, became the pattadar of the land admeasuring Ac.4.25 gts. in Sy.No.223 of Chandanagar village, as he was in uninterrupted possession of the said land as a tenant, and after his death, they inherited the said land and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioners contend that in the revenue records, the revenue authorities recorded the said land as Poramboke land instead of recording the name of Noor Khan as Pattedar of the said land and, as such, they filed a petition, under Section 87 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 fasli, before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, for correction of Settlement error in respect of Sy.No.223 of Chandanagar village of Serilingampally Mandal and also for restoration of original entries in the revenue records, and the said petition was disposed of vide orders dated 19.04.1989 holding that the case may be examined with reference to Circular No.2 of Revenue Department dated 18.10.1949. Thereupon, the petitioners filed a petition before the revenue authorities for consideration of their case in terms of circular No.2 dated 18.10.1949 and, ultimately, the District Revenue Officer, Ranga Reddy District, vide orders dated 26.12.2007 disposed of the same, as not maintainable. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed appeal before the 1st respondent, along with stay petition, but however, the 1st respondent, having admitted the appeal, dismissed the stay petition by order dated 06.11.2008, on the ground that the petitioners failed to establish that they are in possession of the subject lands. The petitioners contend that pending disposal of the appeal filed before the 1st respondent, the respondents are trying to dispossess them from the subject land. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, the 1st respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal purported to have been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 26.12.2007, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, till disposal of the said appeal, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo obtaining as on today as to the possession of the petitioners over the subject land. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 09.09.2009 v v