IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30607 of 2010 Between: Mamatha Educational Society, Khammam. ..... Petitioner AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri R. Radha Krishna Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30607 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed to set aside proceedings dated 04.12.2010 of respondent No.1, whereby while admitting the appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated 02.12.2010 of respondent No.2, the stay application filed by the petitioner has been rejected. I have heard Sri R. Radhakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner, which is running a medical college and hospital, is under the occupation of an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas in Sy.Nos.93 and 94 of Pakabanda, Khammam Urban Mandal. The petitioner is stated to have made an application to the Government for alienation of the said land for market value for convenient enjoyment of the property, which is stated to be situated in the midst of the land belonging to it. It is stated that the petitioner’s application was forwarded to the District Collector, Khammam for submitting a report and that the said application is stated to be pending before the Principal Secretary and Commissioner, Land Administration, Government of A.P. While so, respondent No.2 has issued notice dated 06.09.2010 under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short, “the Act”). The petitioner submitted its reply dated 21.09.2010 wherein the above facts have been mentioned. However, by order dated 02.12.2010, respondent No.2 has passed a final order under Section 7 of the Act ordering eviction of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 10 of the Act. As noted above, respondent No.1, while taking the appeal on file, declined to grant an interim order. A perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.1 has not assigned any reasons whatsoever for rejecting the petitioner’s application for stay. The very fact that the proceedings under the Act have been initiated shows that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question. Respondent No.2, while adverting to the petitioner’s representation that its application for alienation of the land for market value is still pending, has not found the said plea as incorrect. Therefore, the justification or otherwise for initiating proceedings under the Act for eviction of the petitioner when his application for alienation of the land on market value is pending before the competent authority, needs to be adjudicated in the appeal pending before respondent No.1. The fact that respondent No.1 has admitted the appeal shows that he satisfied with the prima facie case of the petitioner. Inasmuch as the petitioner is in possession of the property, which is situated to be in the midst of its private property, shows that the elements of balance of convenience and irreparable injury lie in its favour for granting an interim stay of eviction till the appeal before respondent No.1 is disposed of. For the abovementioned reasons, order dated 04.12.2010 of respondent No.1 to the extent of rejection of the petitioner’s application for stay is set aside. The eviction order dated 02.12.2010 passed by respondent No.2 shall stand stayed till the disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner by respondent No.2. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.38973 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 06.12.2010 ES