IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 573 of 2009 Between: Basavathula Govindamamba W/o. Ramaiah R/o. Mallyal, Srirampur Mandal, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli Karimnagar District. 3 The Tahsildar, Srirampur Mandal, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the impugned proceedings No. B2/2973/08 dt. 7-11-2008 of the 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal, unjust contrary to law, apart from being in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession over the land in an extent of Ac 4.20 cents situated in Sy.No. 66 of Mallyal Village, Karimnagar District . Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAVINDER Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was assigned Ac.1.20 guntas of land in survey No.66 of Mallyal Village, Srirampur Mandal, Karimnagar District, vide proceedings, dated 19.10.1993, by the Tahasildar. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli, the second respondent herein, issued show cause notice, dated 23.09.2008, to the petitioner directing her to explain as to why the land shall not be resumed. The petitioner submitted her explanation. On a consideration of the same, the second respondent passed an order, dated 07.11.2008, directing cancellation of patta in favour of the petitioner and resumption of land to the Government. The petitioner challenges the said order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. This Court would have examined various contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner, particularly the one relating to source of power for the second respondent. However, it is evident that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent. Once an appeal is pending before the first respondent, this Court does not find it appropriate to adjudicate the matter. Further, the first respondent would be in a better position to examine the record in detail and consider the plea raised by the petitioner. The interests of the petitioner can be protected by directing that she shall not be dispossessed from the land assigned to her during the pendency of the appeal before the first respondent. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that the first respondent shall pass appropriate orders on the appeal preferred by the petitioner as early as possible and not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in question. There shall be no order as costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dated:21.01.2009 Note : Furnish C.C. in one week. (B/o) GJ