IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.555 of 2009 Between: Bonthu Ramesh Babu(NT) S/o Chandraiah, Nukalampadu(V) Enkoor(M), Khammam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare (T.W) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Additional Agent to the Government,(Project of Officer I.T.D.A), Bhadrachalam, Khammam Dist, 3 The Special Deputy Collector (T.W), Bhadrachalam, Khammam Dist. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Enkoor, Khammam District. 5 Maddineni Ramulu (NT), S/o Late Veerabhadraiah, R/o. Nukalampadu(V), Enkoor(M), Khammam District. 6 Maddineni Satyam S/o.Seetharanjan, R/o. Nukalampadu(V), Enkoor(M) Khammam District 7 Maddineni Rambabu S/o Nagaiah R/o. Nukalampadu(V), Enkoor(M) Khammam District 8 Maddineni Nageswararao S/o Kotaiah R/o.Nukalampadu(V), Enkoor(M), Khammam District 9 Maddineni Venkateswarlu S/o Late Veerabhadraiah R/o. Nukalampadu(V), Enkoor(M), Khammam District 10 Maddineni Purushotham Rao S/o Chinna Sathyam R/o. Nukalampadu(V), Enkoor(M) 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 may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to set aside the order in L.T.R Case No.357/2004/ENK dt 06-04-2005 passed by the 3rd respondent consequently order of the 2nd respondent in C.M.A No.126/2005 dt.17-11-2007 and consequently to declare as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and against the rule of Res judicata and consequently to direct the 4th respondent not to evict the petitioner from the land in Sy.No.21/AA of Nukkalampadu (V), Enkoor(M), Khammam District, in an extent of Acs. 09.27 gts. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.SYAMSUNDER RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.555 OF 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the order dated 06.04.2005 in L.T.R. Case No.357/2004/ENK passed by the 3rd respondent- Special Deputy Collector (T.W.), Bhadrachalam, Khammam District, and the order dated 17.11.2007 in C.M.A.No.126 of 2005 passed by the 2nd respondent- Additional Agent to Government, Bhadrachalam, as arbitrary and illegal. According to the petitioner, he succeeded to the land in an extent of Acs.9-27 gts. In Sy.No.21/AA situated at Nukalampadu Village, Enkoor Mandal of Khammam District, from his father who succeeded to the same under a Will Deed dated 10.03.1963 executed by its original owner/pattadar namely Maddineni Pedda Pullaiah. It is his case that, initially, the Special Deputy Collector (TW), Palvancha, by order dated 03.07.1997 in L.T.R. Case Nos.457/97/ENK, 458/97/ENK and 459/97/ENK, has declared that the said land is not within the purview and ambit of Section 3 (2) (a) of Regulation 1 of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations, 1959 (for short ‘the 1959 Regulations’), as the transfer of the same took place between two non- tribals. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed O.S.No.60 of 1999 before the Agent to the Government, Khammam, against the unofficial respondents herein, seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the land in question, and the same was disposed of on 19.06.2004, holding that the transfer of land between two non-tribals after 1/1970 is violative under the law in force in Schedule Area and directing the Special Deputy Collector (TW), Bhadrachalam, the 3rd respondent herein, to take suitable action under the 1959 Regulations as amended in 1/1970. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent initiated L.T.R. Case No.357/2004/ENK and ultimately passed an order on 06.04.2005 directing that the land in question be taken into possession by the Government for assigning the same to eligible tribals. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent- Additional Agent to Government, Bhadrachalam, in C.M.A.No.126 of 2005, but the same was also dismissed on 17.11.2007. Hence, the present writ petition is filed questioning both the orders passed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suffice to notice that challenging the order dated 17.11.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has already preferred a revision before the 1st respondent- Government, along with a stay petition, but the petitioner contends that neither the stay petition is ordered nor the revision is taken up for hearing till date, and on the other hand, the 4th respondent- Mandal Revenue Officer, Enkoor, is trying to take possession of the land in question by evicting the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, the 1st respondent-Government is directed to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, status quo obtaining as on today as to the possession of the land in question shall be maintained by the parties. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________​__________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 21st January, 2009. IBL