HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.11113 of 2008 Date: July 28, 2011 Between: Mangalpally Pentaiah, S/o.late Sayanna, Aged about 49 years, Occ:Agriculture,R/o.Abdullapurmet village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and others … Petitioners And The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, and others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in disposing of the appeals preferred by the petitioners in Appeal Nos.B/2950/07 to B/2955/07, on 03.07.2007, before the 2nd respondent-appellate authority. Petitioners herein claim to be the owners and possessors of various extents of land covered by Sy.No.8 of Inamguda village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is stated that they belong to S.C. community and their ancestors were assigned the aforesaid land which later devolved upon them on the demise of the original assignees. The Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Hayathnagar, on the ground that the original assignees have violated the conditions of grant and transferred the land to third parties and the same is being used for non- agricultural purposes, passed order vide proceedings No.C/593/2007, dated 14.04.2007, resuming the said land. It is stated that as against the said order of resumption, petitioners have filed appeals before the 2nd respondent-appellate authority on 03.07.2007, however, the same have not yet been considered and no orders are passed. Though counter-affidavit is not filed on behalf of the respondents, when the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing on behalf of the respondents that the appeals were heard by the earlier Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Special Deputy Collector, but he has been transferred and therefore the appeals are to be decided afresh. Under the scheme of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’), an appeal is provided against the order of resumption passed by the primary authority. When appeals are preferred by the petitioner aggrieved of the order passed by the primary authority, there is no justification on the part of the appellate authority in not disposing such appeals for such a long time. In the circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Special Deputy Collector, East Division, Ranga Reddy District, the appellate authority, to dispose of the appeals filed by the petitioners vide Appeal Nos.B/2950/07 to B/2955/07, against the order dated 14.04.2007 passed by the 3rd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of this order. Needless to observe that the petitioners as well as their counsel, if any, be served notice and heard before passing orders in the said appeals. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) July 28, 2011 MRR