IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 9752 of 2008 Between: Velaga Pushpa Leelavathi W/o. Sambasiva Rao R/o. Kothapeta Village, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary, Tribal Welfare, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Additional Agent to Government Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 3 The Agency Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, Khammam District. 4 The Tahsildar, Bayyaram, Bayyaram Manal, Khammam District. 5 Doneti Janardhan S/o. Rangaiah Kothapeta Village, 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 an writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in Sy.No. 8/2 extent of Ac 2-34 gts situated in Kothapet Village, Bayyaram Mandal, Khammam District, pending disposal of the Revision filed before the Government of A.P. Hyderabad on 19-4-2008 against the Orders in CMA No. 64/2005 dt. 17-11-2007 passed by the Addl. Agent to Government Bhadrachalam. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri R.Kameswar Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : 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 Agency Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, Khammam District passed orders in his Case No.2/3/BYM against the writ petitioner herein on 11.05.2005 ordering her ejectment from out of the land of an extent of Ac.2.34 guntas in Survey No. 8/2 of Kothapeta Village of Bayyaram Mandal, Khammam District. It is not in dispute that against this order of the Agency Divisional Officer, an appeal is provided to the Additional Agent to the Government and Project Officer, I.T.D.A., 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 and along with the appeal, an interlocutory application was also moved seeking stay of the operation of the orders of the Agency Divisional Officer dated 11.05.2005. The appeal filed by the petitioner in C.M.A.No. 64 of 2005 has been dismissed by the 2nd respondent by an order dated 17.11.2007 directing the Tahsildar, Bayyaram Mandal to take over the possession of the scheduled land and assign the same to the eligible tribals. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the 2nd respondent, the writ petitioner preferred a revision before the Government – 1st respondent along with an interlocutory application. It is asserted that the Government of Andhra Pradesh is so preoccupied with other pressing works and consequently, is not in a position to take up the revision preferred and no interlocutory orders could be obtained by the writ petitioner. In the meantime, the Special Deputy Collector and his subordinate officers are threatening the writ petitioner to vacate from out of the scheduled land. Therefore, the present writ petition has been instituted. Once a revision is preferred to the Government, it is only expected that it will be attended to at the earliest convenient time. If the revision itself cannot be decided, the interlocutory application moved by the parties seeking urgent interim orders could be attended to in the meantime. It is no doubt true that the Government is preoccupied with more pressing and important public functions, but that is no justification for not entertaining the revisions pending before it. In these set of circumstances, I consider it appropriate to direct the Government to entertain, hear and decide the revision preferred against the orders of the Additional Agent to the Government dated 17.11.2007 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 Government to independently consider the interlocutory application moved by the writ petitioner herein and decide the same even before it decides the revision preferred to it. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 1st May 2008 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}