IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 27882 of 2008 Between: Puvvada Suryanaryaana, S/o. Pedanarasimha Rao, R/o. Udaya Bhaskar Road, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Agency Divisional Officer, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 3 The Additional Agent to the Government and Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 4 The Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 5 Towdisetty Rajeswara Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, R/o. Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of mandamus declaring the action declaring the orders passed by the first respondent in Lr.No. 7912/LTR-2/2008-2, dated 4-12-2008 rejecting the stay petition filed by the Writ Petitoner for suspending the operation of the orders passed by the Agency Divisional Officer, Bhadrachalam in L.T.R. Case No. 11/BCM/2004 dated 21-11-2006 and the orders passed by the Additional Agent to the Government, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District, is in violation of Article 14, 21 and 300(a) of the constitution of India and also the provisions of A.P.(Scheduled Areas) Land Transfer Regulation 1 to 1959 and its Amendment 1 of 1970 and consequentially declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue in possession and enjoyment of the lands till the disposal of the Revision pending before the Government and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.V.RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.27882 of 2008 ORDER: 1 According to the petitioner, basing on the report submitted by the 4th respondent, the 2nd respondent herein on 21.11.2006 passed an order of ejectment of the petitioner from the property in question and directed the fourth respondent to take possession of the same under a cover of panchanama and assign the same to the eligible poor tribals and immediately thereafter questioning the said order, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the third respondent. But, however, the third respondent, by order dated 21.06.2008 dismissed the said appeal. Questioning the same, the petitioner carried the matter in revision before the first respondent and along with the said revision the petitioner has also filed an application seeking suspension of the respective orders passed by the Primary as well as the Appellate Authorities. However, as no orders were passed, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.No.22570 of 2008, and this Court was pleased to dispose of the said Writ Petition vide order dated 17.10.2008 directing the first respondent herein to consider the revision preferred by the petitioner and pending consideration of the said revision petition or the application of stay, whichever is earlier, status-quo was ordered to be maintained by both parties. According to the petitioner subsequent to the disposal of the said Writ Petition the first respondent had passed an order dated 04.12.2008 rejecting the application for stay of operation of the orders passed by the second and third respondents respectively. 2 Now the present grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that the revisional authority i.e. first respondent, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, had mechanically passed the order without assigning any reasons for the rejection of stay. Hence the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present Writ Petition apprehending that his possession over the property in question will be disturbed. 3 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4 As it is the grievance of the petitioner that the revisional authority had dismissed the application for stay without assigning any reasons or without giving any opportunity of hearing to him, and as the revision preferred by the petitioner before the first respondent is pending, this Court is of the view that without going into the merits of the case this Writ Petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission. 5 Accordingly the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the land admeasuring Ac.2-95 in Sy.No.44 situated at Bhadrachalam village of Khammam District during the pendency of the revision before the first respondent, further, the first respondent is hereby directed to decide the revision said to have been preferred by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ------------------------- SRI T.G.K, J. 22.12.2008 C.C. Tomorrow B/o kvsn