THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10649 of 2010 April 30, 2010 Between: M/s.Saket Builders, represented by its Director Mr.G.Ravi Kumar … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10649 of 2010 ORDER: M/s.Saket Builders Limited filed instant writ petition feeling aggrieved by the order of second respondent dated 27.4.2010 whereby and whereunder while accepting the appeal under Section 10 of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (the Act), second respondent rejected stay of the order under Section 6 of the Act passed by third respondent. Petitioner statedly purchased Acs.11.00 in survey No.122 situated at Kapra Village of Keesara Mandal in Ranga Reddy District under registered sale deeds dated 29.9.2004 and developed a Gated Community Projects after obtaining necessary permission from Kapra Municipality and Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (now, Hyderabad Metro Development Authority). Third respondent nonetheless initiated action under the Act and after issuing notice passed order on 23.4.2010 directing eviction of petitioner from the land admeasuring Acs.1.02 guntas in survey No.104 of Kapra Village. Petitioner denies allegation of encroachment of land. Be that as it is, as noticed supra petitioner filed appeal and sought stay, in vain. This Court heard the counsel for petitioner and the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area). In Narasimha Raju v State of Andhra Pradesh[1] Manda Ram Reddy v Government of Andhra Pradesh[2], this Court took the view that pending appeal or revision, if the order challenged is not stayed, the same will have effect of rendering such appeal or revision futile and ineffective. In this case, the petitioner contends that they purchased the land in 2004 and developed the project. Therefore, if the stay of operation of proceedings of third respondent is not granted, it might even render remedy of appeal futile. Therefore, while ordering stay of proceedings of third respondent, writ petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to pass appropriate orders in the appeal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) April 30, 2010 NOTE: Issue order copy in one week. (By order) YS [1] 1959 ALT 66 (NRC) [2] 2006 (1) ALD 441: 2006 (2) ALT 371