HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27454 of 2007 Dated: 28-01-2008 Between: Golla Gopaiah & others. … Petitioners And The Principal Secretary to Government, Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27454 of 2007 ORDER: In the present writ petition, the petitioners seek a declaration by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent No.1 in not passing appropriate orders either on the stay petition or the revision petition filed on 15th of November 2007 against the orders of respondent No.2, dated 28.07.2007 in C.M.A.No.55 of 2005 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners claim ownership and possession over the land admeasuring Ac.7.13 gts., covered by Survey No.375/6 situated at Nacharam village of Enkuru Mandal, Khammam District. The Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Palvancha, earlier, initiated proceedings in L.T.R.Case Nos.1762/93/ENK and 1763/93/ENK against the predecessors in title of the petitioners, on the ground that the transfer of said land in their favour was in contravention of A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. But however, by order dated 31st of January 1994, proceedings were dropped. It is the case of the petitioners that though the said order had become final, further proceedings were initiated by the 3rd respondent- Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Bhadrachalam in Case No.70/98/ENK and passed orders of eviction against the petitioners on 18th of January 2005. Though the petitioners preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent-Additional Agent to Government in C.M.A.No.55 of 2005, the same has ended in dismissal vide orders dated 28th of July 2007. It is stated that against the orders of appellate authority in C.M.A.No.55 of 2005, the petitioners preferred revision before respondent No.1 on 15th of November 2007 as provided under the Regulations. It is the grievance of the petitioners that inspite of filing a petition for interim orders, the revisional authority has not passed any orders on that petition, and on the other hand, the official respondents are taking steps for eviction of petitioners from the said land. Several grounds have been mentioned in the writ petition, questioning the validity of the orders of eviction dated 18th of January 2005, as confirmed by the appellate authority. It is submitted that when earlier proceedings were dropped, respondents have no power to review the same. It is further submitted that in the absence of transfer of land, initiation of proceedings under Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970, are illegal. Asmuch as the petitioners have already availed the remedy of revision against the orders of eviction passed by the 3rd respondent-Special Deputy Collector as confirmed by the appellate authority, by filing the same on 15th of November 2007, and in view of the pendency of that revision petition, it is not desirable to record any finding on merits in this writ petition. But however, it is to be seen that the proceedings initiated against the predecessors in title of the petitioners were rejected by one authority as early as on 31st of January 1994, and ever since, as the petitioners are in longstanding possession, and also in view of various grounds taken by the petitioners in this writ petition, I deem it appropriate that the petitioners shall be allowed to continue in possession over the land in question till disposal of the revision petition filed by them before the 1st respondent on 15th of November 2007. In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and there shall be a further direction to the respondents not to evict the petitioners from the petition schedule property covered by L.T.R. Case No.70/1998/ENK till the disposal of revision petition filed by them before the 1st respondent. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 28th January 2008 ajr