IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 9362 of 2008 Between: 1 Boggavarapu Murahari Rao S/o. Laet Laxminarayana H.No. 8-2-401, R&B Road, Bandarugudem, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District. 2 Ravoori Ranga Rao S/o. Late Venkata Subba Rao H.No. 8-2-402 & 8-2-403, R&B Road, Bandarugudem, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District. 3 Bolukonda Murali S/o. Late Venkataramaiah H.No. 8-2-404, R&B Road, Bandarugudem, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District. 4 Rayala Rani W/o. Late Satya Babu H.No. 8-2-405, R&B Road, Bandarugudem, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District. 5 Buddi Ramakrishna S/o. Late Rayamallu H.No. 8-2-406, R&B Road, Bandarugudem, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Addl. Agent to Government Cum Project Officer, Integrated Tribunal Development Agency (ITDA) at Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 2 The Special Deputy Collector (TW) Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 3 The Tahsildar, Manuguru Taluka, Khammam District. 4 The S.H.O., P.S. Manuguru, Khammam Dist. A.P. 5 Bandaru Nageswar Rao S/o. Late Chinnabbai R/o. Bandarugudem, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District. 6 Bandaru Chinna Venkaiah S/o. Tirumalaiah R/o. R&B Main Road, Bandarugudem, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to o issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondent No.1 herein not grant stay of the operation of the order dt. 30.11.1987 and 6A Case dated 12.03.2008 in Case. No. 232/MGR/87 of the 2nd respondent herein, received by petitioners on 15.04.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonble, contrary to the principles of natural justice and the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation and also violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction to the Respondents 2 to 6 herein to evict the petitioners No. 1 to 5 from house bearing No.8-2- 401, 8-2402 & 403, 8-2-404, 8-2-405 and 8-2-406 of land Sy.no. 228, 209, 222 situated at R&B Main Road , Banddarugudem, Manuguru Taluka, Khammam District respectively, pending disposal of the appeal files by the petitioner herein before the 1st respondent herein. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri S.Madan Mohan Rao Counsel for Respondent No.1 to 3 : GP for Social Welfare Counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 : Sri K. Balagopal The Court made the following O R D E R: This writ petition has been instituted calling in question the order passed on 30th November 1987 and the order passed on 12th March 2008 by the 2nd respondent against which the writ petitioners have preferred an appeal on 15th April 2008 before the Additional Agent to the Government, CUM Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. Along with the appeal, they have also moved an application seeking stay of the operation of the orders. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have not sued her properly in 1987, but sued another individual by name, Sri D. Panakala Rao, who has not preferred to contest the said case in 1987 and while seeking to execute such an order, the Special Deputy Collector passed the impugned order on 12th March 2008. The unofficial respondents have filed a detailed counter in the matter pointing out that the petitioner is acting in collusion with the said Panakala Rao and consequently, for more than 21 years, the orders passed by the Special Deputy Collector have not been given effect to and that the present order passed on 12th March 2008 is nothing but an execution of a decree that is passed for ejectment of the petitioner. This question being a factual matter will have to be considered by the Appellate Authority. However, at this stage, it will be relevant to notice that the petitioners are said to have constructed houses and they are in possession thereof. Therefore, the balance of convenience would lie in allowing them to continue to occupy the said houses till 31st August 2008, by which time, the 1st respondent – Additional Agent to the Government and Project Officer, ITDA, Bhadrachalam should dispose of the appeal preferred by the writ petitioners. For any reason, if the appeal is not to be disposed of, the 1st respondent shall hear the stay application, by providing an opportunity to the opposite party to contest the same, any time prior to 15th July 2008. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 1st May 2008 Note: Issue CC tomorrow. (bo) ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}