THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.686 of 2005 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents. It appears, against the orders dated 12.10.2004 passed by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, resuming the land to an extent of Ac.3.96 cents in Sy.Nos.739/1 and 739/2 and the land to an extent of Ac.3.96 cents in Sy.No.740-3 and 740-4 of Chennur village, Dagadarthi Mandal, Nellore District, to the Government, the petitioners preferred appeal along with stay petition to the 1st respondent and the said stay petition was rejected by order dated 03.01.2005. Hence, this writ petition is filed challenging the said order dated 03.01.2005 passed in the stay petition filed along with the appeal before the 1st respondent. While admitting the writ petition on 24.01.2005, an interim order was passed in WPMP.No.928 of 2005 directing the respondents not to dispossess the 1st petitioner from the land to an extent of Acs.3.96 cents in Sy.No.739/1 and 739/2 and the 2nd petitioner from the land to an extent of Ac.3.96 cents in Sy.Nos.740-3 and 740-4 of Chennur village, Dagadarthi Mandal, Nellore District, by suspending the operation of the orders of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Rc.No.2410/2004 dated 12.10.2004. Now, it is more than five years since the writ petition is pending, and no purpose would be solved to adjudicate upon as to whether the appellate authority was right or wrong in rejecting the stay petition. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal filed against the order dated 12.10.2004 passed by the 2nd respondent, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and during pendency of the appeal, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the lands in question. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 02.12.2010 v v