IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19063 of 2010 Between: Mirthivada Achutha Rao … Petitioner And Agency Divisional Officer, Ramachandrapuram, E.G. District. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S. Ganesh for Sri N. Vijay Counsel for the respondent: AGP for Social Welfare This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19063 of 2010 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is ﬁled questioning order, dated 15.06.2010, in A.D.O.L.T.R. 21 of 2010 of the respondent, whereby he has directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the construction over Ac.0.03 cents of land in Rampachodavaram Village, East Godavari District. A perusal of the record shows that a petition was ﬁled before the respondent by the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Tribal Welfare, Rampachodavaram, alleging that the transfer of the abovementioned property was made in contravention of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1/59 (for short, “Regulation 1/59”) as amended by Regulation 1/70. The said petition was entertained by the respondent and a notice was issued in Form-E stating that an enquiry will be held on 06.07.2010. By a separate order issued on the same day, which is also styled as Form-E, the petitioner and another person by name, Mamidipalli Satyanarayana were directed not to take up any further construction and to maintain status quo. Even though the Writ Petition was ﬁled in August 2010, there is no interim order, as a result of which the order of status quo, impugned in this Writ Petition, is in force. Even though the petitioner has raised the plea that there is no jurisdiction for the respondent to grant interim order before passing an order of ejectment, having regard to the fact that the interim order is subsisting for more than one year, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate the said aspect at this stage. Instead, interests of justice would be met if the proceedings initiated by the respondent are completed and a ﬁnal order is passed at the earliest. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to complete the enquiry and pass a ﬁnal order, if not already done, strictly following the procedure prescribed under Regulation 1/59, as amended by Regulation 1/70, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, WPMP.No.24101 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 03.12.2011 ES