THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.3361 of 2010 Dated: 17.02.2010 Between: Sri Pallepu Ramana Rao .. Petitioner. And The Government of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, And others. .. Respondents. ORDER: According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts. in Sy.No.838/134 situated at Edulla Bayyaram village, Pinapaka Mandal, Khammam District, which was originally purchased by his father under sada sale deed dated 15.03.1962 from the father of the 5th respondent. While so, the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Paloncha, initiated proceedings under the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation Rules, 1969 framed under Regulation 1/1959 (for short ‘Regulation 1/1959’), against the petitioner, on the allegations of his contravening the provisions of Regulation 1/1959, but however, ultimately, having found no reasons to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land by the petitioner, passed orders on 01.05.1995 in LTR Case No.1044/94/PNK, dropping further proceedings against the petitioner. Subsequently, again in the year 2008, on the very same allegations raised by the 5th respondent, the 3rd respondent-Special Deputy Collector (TW), Bhadrachalam, initiated proceedings under the provisions of Regulation 1/1959 against the petitioner, and ultimately, by order dated 14.05.2008 in Case No.51/2008/PNK, dropped the further proceedings against the petitioner, on the ground of res judicata. Aggrieved thereby, the 5th respondent herein carried the matter in appeal in CMA.No.2 of 2009 on the file of the 2nd respondent- Additional Agent to Government, Bhadrachalam, and the same was allowed, by order dated 02.01.2010, setting aside the orders dated 01.05.1995 and 14.05.2008 in LTR Case Nos.1044/94/PNK and 51/08/PNK respectively. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred revision petition, along with stay petition, before the 1st respondent- Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 01.02.2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that the revision petition, along with stay petition, filed by him before the 1st respondent are not yet taken up for disposal and, on the other hand, pending disposal of the revision petition along with stay petition filed by him, the respondents 1 to 4 are trying to dispossess him from the subject land. Heard the learned counsel on either side. Orders, dated 01.05.1995, passed in LTR Case No.1044/94/PNK on the file of the 3rd respondent would, prima facie, disclose the deposition made by the 5th respondent to the effect that his father sold away the subject land to the petitioner herein in the year 1962 i.e., prior to the enforcement of Regulation I/1959, and the subject land is under the possession of the petitioner, and, thus, the 3rd respondent, dropped the further proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of Regulation I/1959. Further, though the proceedings dated 01.05.1995 passed in LTR Case No.1044/94/PNK are not challenged before the 2nd respondent in CMA.No.2 of 2009, the 2nd respondent, by his orders dated 02.01.2010, while allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned orders therein i.e., orders dated 14.05.2008 passed in Case No.51/2008/PNK, had also set aside the orders dated 01.05.1995 passed in LTR Case No.1044/94/PNK. Admittedly, the petitioner is in possession of the subject land for more than 40 years. For the aforesaid reasons, the 1st respondent is directed to dispose of the revision petition filed against the orders dated 02.01.2010 in CMA.No.2 of 2009 on the file of the 2nd respondent, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to give effect to the orders dated 02.01.2010 passed in CMA.No.2 of 2009 on the file of the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU,J 17.02.2010 Note: Issue CC in three days B/o v v