HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.No. 26690 of 2011 Dt.23-09-2011 Between: D.Chanchu Raghava Raju …Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor & 2 others. ..respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.No. 26690 of 2011 O R D E R: The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-D.Chanchu Raghava Raju seeking Mandamus declaring the order in D.Dis.No.G/2315//2011 dt.04.06.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi Revenue Division, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The petitioner claims that his father-late Narayana Swamy Raju purchased Ac.2.60 cents in Sy.No.162-1 and Ac.2.66 cents in Sy.No.162-3 of Karuru Village fields, Pichatur Mandal, Chittoor District under an unregistered sale deed dated 17.10.1969 from one late Ragaiah S/o. late Chengadu and another person, late Venkata Swamy S/o. late Ramudu respectively for valid consideration. The father of the petitioner raised cashew nut trees in the said lands. After demise of his father, the petitioner cut the cashew nut trees and raised mango garden. While so, the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar issued a notice in form No.I & II under Rule-3 of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Rules, 2007 stating that the subject lands were purchased in contravention of the provisions of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice. The Proceedings before the Tahsildar went against the petitioner. Thereupon the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi. The said appeal also ended in dismissal on 4.6.2011. Assailing the said order of dismissal, the petitioner filed a revision before the 1st respondent- District Collector, Chittoor. Pending the revision, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble court invoking the jurisdiction of Art.226 of the Constitution of India seeking the prayer stated supra. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Asst. Government Pleader (Assignment) has taken notice on behalf of the respondents. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer disposed of the appeal without issuing notice to the petitioner and that therefore, the order passed by the 2nd respondent is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. Be that as it may, the petitioner has already filed a revision before the District Collector, Chittoor, assailing the order passed by the appellate authority i.e, 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional officer, Tirupathi. 7. Having regard to the fact that the revision is pending before the 1st respondent, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent No.1 to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioner in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Till the disposal of the said revision, the status-quo existing as on this date with regard to possession and nature of the lands in dispute shall be maintained. 8. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt. 23-09-2011 Mjl/* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.No. 26690 of 2011 Dt. 23-09-2011 Mjl/*