IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 2407 of 2009 Between: Komarthi Lakshmi W/o.Kanna Rao R/o.Gollapudi Village, Nakkapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Agent to Government (The Project Officer), East Godavari District at Rampachodavaram. 2 The Tahsildar, Devipatnam Mandal, E.G. District. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Social Welfare (LTR-2) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, suspending the order of the respondent No.1 in CMA No.14 of 2008 dated 1.1.2009 pending statutory revision filed by the petitioner on 09.01.2009 on the file of the 3rd respondent Government against the said order in CMA No.14 of 2008 dated 01.01.2009. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.R.SANKU & KAVITI MURLI KRISNA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2407 OF 2009 ORDER: The only grievance of the petitioner is that aggrieved by the order made in L.T.R.P.No.69 of 2007 dated 07.01.2008 on the file of the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District, she filed C.M.A.No.14 of 2008 and the same was also dismissed on 01.01.2009 by the 1st respondent-Additional Agent to Government, East Godavari District at Rampachodavaram. Aggrieved by the same, she preferred a statutory revision before the 3rd respondent-Government and during pendency of the revision, she also filed a stay petition seeking suspension of the orders of the 1st respondent. However, the stay petition is not yet disposed of. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. According to the petitioner, the transactions in dispute have taken place much prior to the Act 1 of 1970 came into force and throughout the proceedings and even as of now she is in possession of the property. 3. In view of the pendency of the revision petition before the 3rd respondent, it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 3rd respondent to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, pending disposal of the revision petition, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the schedule land. 4. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 16.02.2009 v v