IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22573 of 2008 Between: 1 Charugulla Janaki Rama Rao S/o. Late Sheshaiah R.o, H.No. 7-1-25, LIC Office Road, Bhadrachalam town & Mandal, Khammam District. 2 Charugulla Satyanarayana S/o. Late Sheshaiah R.o, H.No. 7-1-25, LIC Office Road, Bhadrachalam town & Mandal, Khammam District. 3 Charugulla Srinivasa Rao S/o. Late Sheshaiah R.o, H.No. 7-1-25, LIC Office Road, Bhadrachalam town & Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Principal Secretary to Govt. Tribunal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Additional Agent to Govt. & Project Officer, I.T.D.A. Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 3 The Agency Divisional officer, Bhadrachalam. 4 The Tahsildar, Bhadrachalam .....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 writ or direction preferably writ of Mandamus, declaring the in action of the 1st respondent in passing appropriate orders on the Revision itself ﬁled on 22.09.2008 against the order of 2nd respondent dated 21.6.2008 in C.M.A.No. 6/2008 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequentially direct the respondent No.1 to consider and dispose of the stay petition or the Revision itself with in a reasonable time and also further direct the respondents, not to dispossess us from possession and enjoyment of the subject property in S.No. 30/11, measuring extent of Acs. 3-17 kts, situated at Bhadrachalam Village & Mandal, pending disposal of the revision on the ﬁle of the 1st respondent, and may be pleased to pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been ﬁled by the petitioners, who are three in number, assailing the action of the Tahsildar, Bhadrachalam-4th respondent in trying to dispossess them from the land bearing Sy.No.30/11 admeasuring Ac.3.17 cents pending revision ﬁled by them before the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-1st respondent. The petitioners claim to be in possession of Ac.3.11 cents situated at Bhadrachalam Village and Mandal of Khammam District having inherited the same from their father. The Settlement Oﬃcer granted patta by order dated 9.12.2002 in case No.7215 and consequently the Tahsildar, Bhadrachalam- 4th respondent issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the petitioners. Proceedings have been initiated against them on the ground that their possession over the land is in contravention of Andhra Pradesh Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. The primary authority found that the possession of the petitioners is in contravention of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. The petitioners ﬁled appeal being CMA No.6 of 2008. The appellate authority disposed of the appeal by its order, dated 21.06.2008 conﬁrming the order of the primary authority. The petitioners ﬁled revision before the 1st respondent and also moved an application seeking stay of operation of the order passed by the primary authority as conﬁrmed by the appellate authority. Pending revision, Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Oﬃce, Bhadrachalam-4 th respondent is contemplating to dispossess the petitioners from the land in his occupation. Hence, this writ petition. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare received notice on behalf of R1 to R4. The factual aspect of ﬁling revision by the petitioners before the 1st respondent is not controverted by the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of R1 to R4. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the revision filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. There shall be status quo existing as on this day with regard to possession of the land in dispute till the disposal of revision or stay application, whichever is earlier. No costs. __________ 17-10-2008 rkk