IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 8298 of 2008 Between: Sri Vemulapalli Venkateswar Rao, S/o. Anjaiah, R/o. Kotha Anjanpuram village, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Hyderabad. 2 Additional Agent to Government Project Officer, ITDA Bhandrachalam, Khammam District. 3 The Tahsildar, Kothagudem, 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 issue a writ, direction or order more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not taking the appeal on file against the order passed in LRT Case No.335/2007/KGM by fixing date for hearing as illegal and arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.T.Sharath Counsel for the Respondents : GP for Social Welfare The Court made the following O R D E R: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare. The Special Deputy Collector, Bhadrachalam passed orders in his proceedings in L.T.R.Case No.335/2007 against the writ petitioner herein on 22.12.2007 ordering his ejectment from out of the land of an extent of Ac.1.27 guntas in Survey No. 103 of Singabhupelam Village, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District. It is not in dispute that against this order of the Special Deputy Collector, an appeal is provided to the Additional Agent to the Government, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation Act, 1959. The writ petitioner has asserted that such an appeal had been preferred on 15.03.2008 and along with the appeal, an interlocutory application was also moved seeking stay of the operation of the orders of Special Deputy Collector, Bhadrachalam, dated 22.12.2007, but the 2nd respondent did not choose to pass orders either in the stay petition or in the main appeal. Therefore, the present writ petition has been instituted. Once an appeal is preferred to the 2nd respondent, it is only expected that it will be attended to at the earliest convenient time. If the appeal itself cannot be decided, the interlocutory application moved by the parties seeking urgent interim orders could be attended to in the meantime. In these set of circumstances, I consider it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to entertain, hear and decide the appeal preferred against the orders of the Special Deputy Collector, Bhadrachalam dated 22.12.2007 within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the status quo existing as of now with regard to possession be maintained. It is, however, open to the 2nd respondent to independently consider the interlocutory application moved by the writ petitioner herein and decide the same even before it decides the appeal preferred to it. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 17th April 2008 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}