THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.25259 OF 2011 ORDER: The action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioners from lands admeasuring different extents totalling Ac.4-49 cents, in different Survey Numbers of Unikilli Village, Mandavalli Mandal, Krishna District, is questioned in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary and illegal. Action was initiated against the petitioners under Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (A.P. Act 9 of 1977); the assignment was cancelled; and the lands were resumed. Aggrieved thereby, the first petitioner preferred an appeal to the third respondent which was dismissed on 03.04.2010. Against the said order of the third respondent, the first petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent who, by order dated 16.05.2011, dismissed the appeal. The first petitioner, thereafter, preferred a revision to the first respondent who, by order dated 24.06.2011, remanded the matter back to the second respondent for re-verification of facts, and for appropriate orders to be passed thereafter. It is the petitioners’ case that, while matters stood thus and the appeal before the second respondent had suffered several adjournments, the respondents were now seeking to evict the petitioners from the lands in question. Sri T. Vishnu Teja, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would assert that the appeal before the second respondent suffered adjournment from time to time, and the latest adjournment on 07.09.2011 was because the petitioners had informed the second respondent that a copy of the survey report was not made available to them. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment), on instructions, states that the lands were resumed by the Government, and is in its possession; the second respondent has heard the matter on 07.09.2011, and reserved orders in the appeal; and orders would be pronounced thereupon at the earliest. As there is a dispute with regards the stage at which the appeal is pending before the second respondent, I consider it appropriate to direct the second respondent to dispose of the appeal before 31.10.2011 and, if the matter has not been reserved, to give the petitioners a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Since there is also a dispute with regards possession, I consider it appropriate to direct both the parties to maintain status quo as on today till final orders are passed by the second respondent. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J September 09, 2011 Note: Issue operative portion by wire at party’s cost. B/O.MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.25259 OF 2011 September 09, 2011 MD