IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 28699 of 2008 Between: Mandapaka Katam Swamy ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The Additional Agent to Government, East Godavari District, at Rampachodavaram. 2.The Tahsildar, Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 3.The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Social Welfare (LTR-2) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 4.Varre Chittibabu, R/o Pidathamamidi village, Gangavaram Mandal, E.G.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 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.67 of 2005 dated 01.12.2008 (arising out of LTRP No.220 of 2003 on the file of the Special Deputy Collector, (TW) Rampachodavaram), pending statutory revision filed by the petitioner dated 23.12.2008 on the file of the 3rd respondent Governmen t against the said order in CMA No.67 of 2005 dated 01.12.2008 and pass such other order as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.R.SANKU & KAVITI MURLI KRISNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.28699 of 2008 ORDER: Initially second respondent filed LTRP No.220 of 2003 under the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by 1 of 1970 before the Special Deputy Collector, (Tribal Welfare) Rampachodavaram seeking ejectment of the fourth respondent from the land to an extent of Ac.14.42 cents in Sy.No.73 in Pdatamamidi Village, Gangavaram Mandal in East Godavari District and after due enquiry, the Special Deputy Collector passed an order dated 03.02.2004 in favour of the fourth respondent holding that the possession of the fourth respondent over the said land is not violative and ultimately dismissed the said LTRP No.220/2003. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner carried the matter before the first respondent in C.M.A.No.67 of 2005, which was dismissed on 01.12.2008. Assailing the same, the petitioner in this Writ Petition preferred a revision before the third respondent and along with the revision, the petitioner also filed an application seeking suspension of the order passed by the first respondent. However, as no orders have yet been passed on the said application, the petitioner approached this court and filed the present Writ Petition apprehending dispossession. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Section 2 (o) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 wherein the words “other traditional forest dweller” is defined according to which any member of community who has for at least three generations prior to the 13th day of December 2005 primarily resided in and who depend on the forest or forests land for bona fide livelihood needs and contended that the fourth respondent does not come under the purview of said definition. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the present Writ Petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission as follows: In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to dispose of the revision pending before it within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass appropriate orders thereon after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. However, pending disposal of the same, the order passed by the first respondent in CMA No.67 of 2005 dated 01.12.2008 shall be suspended. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions, which are now raised in this Writ Petition before the third respondent in the revision. No order as to costs. -------------------------------------------------------- JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 29.12.2008 Gsn