THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2174 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioner herein prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not passing appropriate orders either on the stay petition or on the revision itself filed on 24-1- 2011 against the order of 2nd respondent dt:4-12-2010 in C.M.A.No.12/2010 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the stay petition or the revision itself within a reasonable time and further direct respondents 1 to 4 or their subordinate staff not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in Sy.No.62/185 & 62/186 measuring an extent of Acs.5.00 guntas and Acs.5.00 guntas total admeasuring Ac.10.00 guntas respectively situated at Somulagudem Village, Palvoncha Mandal of Khammam District, pending disposal of the revision on the file of the 1st respondent.” Petitioners claim that they are owners and possessors of land admeasuring Acs.10.00 Guntas covered by Survey Nos.62/185 & 62/186 situated at Somulagudem Village, Palvoncha Mandal, Khammam District. It is their case that the said land was purchased by their father from the father of the fifth respondent by an unregistered sale deed, dated 18.11.1968. The fifth respondent is a tribal. It is their further case that in spite of the fact that the transfer was prior to the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 (for short ‘Regulation 1 of 1970’) came into force prohibiting transfers inter se non-tribals, the second respondent/appellate authority – Additional Agent to the Government, Bhadrachalam, under Regulation 1 of 1970, passed orders of eviction on 04.12.2010. It is their further case that in the first round of litigation, proceedings were initiated against them as early as in 2000 and an order was passed by the third respondent/primary authority - Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Bhadrachalam, on 04.05.2000 dropping such proceedings in view of deposition of the fifth respondent that the transfer was made on 18.11.1968. It is submitted that again, the proceedings are initiated against the petitioners in 2010 and taking into account earlier order, dated 04.05.2000, the third respondent/primary authority passed order, dated 09.03.2010, dropping the proceedings initiated against the petitioners on the ground of res judicata. As against the said order, the fifth respondent carried the matter in appeal before the second respondent in CMA.No.12 of 2010. It is further submitted that the second respondent/appellate authority erroneously allowed the said appeal on 04.12.2010 without examining the issue of res judicata. It is also submitted that as against the order, dated 04.12.2010, passed by the second respondent in CMA.No.12 of 2010, the petitioners have carried the matter in revision before the first respondent/revisional authority - Government of Andhra Pradesh (Tribal Welfare Department), Secretariat, Hyderabad, on 24.01.2011, along with an application for interim orders. It is the grievance of the petitioners that although they moved the revisional authority as provided in Regulation 1 of 1970, the revisional authority is not taking up either stay application or revision and in the meanwhile, the authorities are taking steps to evict the petitioners pursuant to the order, dated 04.12.2010, passed by the second respondent/appellate authority in CMA.No.12 of 2010. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and learned counsel for the fifth respondent, who filed caveat. In view of pendency of revision before the first respondent/revisional authority, this order is being passed to dispose of the writ petition. I have perused a copy of the order passed as early as on 04.05.2000 by the third respondent/primary authority dropping the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. In spite of the fact that in the first round of litigation, the order was passed by the third respondent/primary authority on 04.05.2000 by recording a finding that there is no transfer in violation of the provisions of Regulation 1 of 1970, even in the second round of litigation, on an application filed by the fifth respondent in 2010, the third respondent/primary authority vide order, dated 09.03.2010, dropped the proceedings on the ground of res judicata but the second respondent/appellate authority has considered the matter without reference to the order, dated 04.05.2000, passed by the third respondent/primary authority and ordered for eviction of the petitioners. However, correctness or otherwise of these issues is to be considered by the first respondent/revisional authority in view of pendency of the revision before it. In that view of the matter, as much as it is not in dispute that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question right from 1968 and in view of reversing order passed by the second respondent/appellate authority and taking into account pendency of the revision filed by the petitioners before the first respondent/revisional authority, I deem it appropriate to direct the first respondent/revisional authority to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioners on 24.01.2011, as expeditiously as possible. Further, order, dated 04.12.2010, passed by the second respondent/appellate authority in CMA.No.12 of 2010 shall remain suspended till disposal of such revision. There shall be a further direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners to cultivate the land in question till appropriate final orders to be passed in the revision are communicated to them. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 4th FEBRUARY, 2011. kvni