THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10400 of 2010 Dated:30.04.2010 Between: Smt.Tayabba Asif Khan, And others. ….Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10400 of 2010 ORDER: The first petitioner is allegedly owner of land admeasuring Acs.3.87½ cents in survey Nos.177/34 and 177/36 situated at Aziznagar Village, Moinabad Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. The second petitioner is allegedly owner of land admeasuring Acs.3.87½ cents in the same survey numbers. The third petitioner is allegedly owner of land admeasuring Ac.4.00 in survey No.177/35 of the same Village. The third respondent herein initiated action under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (the Act), and passed orders on 12.04.2010 under Section 6 of the Act directing eviction of the petitioners from encroachment of Government land. The petitioners then preferred appeal under Section 10 of the Act to the second respondent on 27.04.2010. The petitioners also filed an application under Section 10(2) of the Act seeking suspension of the proceedings of the Tahsildar. Alleging that the second respondent did not pass orders immediately, they filed the instant writ petition on 28.04.2010 seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in not granting an order of suspension as illegal and arbitrary. In Mir Fazle Ali Nasiri v. State of A.P[1] this Court considered the question of power and jurisdiction of High Court in directing the revenue authorities to exercise the quasi judicial powers vested in them in a time bound manner. Referring the relevant case law of the Supreme Court, this Court held as under. That being the legal position the time limit within which a statutory authority should act or due to act not being mandatory, it would be impermissible for this Court in every case to issue a direction as a matter of course to public authorities to dispose of application/appeal/revision, within a specified time. It can always be argued that, such a direction would amount to introducing a requirement in the statute, which the Legislature itself did not provide for. Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that as and when such a writ petition is filed seeking a direction - seemingly innocuous - to dispose of the matter expeditiously, such a direction cannot ordinarily be given unless, of course, there is inordinate delay in discharging public duties which itself amount to arbitrariness. In this case admittedly the appeal was presented to second respondent on 27.04.2010 and this writ petition on 28.04.2010. Be it also noted that under Section 11 of the Act, the time for filing appeal is sixty days and the time for filing appeal also is not expired and in a great haste the present writ petition is fled. The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue the remedy with the second respondent. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 30.04.2010 vs [1] 2007 (2) ALD 3