IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.22296 of 2011 BETWEEN Pandyan and 13 others. ... PETITIONERS AND The Additional Agent to the Government – cum – Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District and three others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE – R1 TO R3 The Court made the following order: ORDER: An adverse order was passed against 22 respondents, which includes the petitioners herein arrayed as respondents 1, 5, 7 to 15, 17, 18 and 22, by the Agency Divisional Officer and Sub-Collector, Bhadrachalam in Case.No.8/CTR/2008 dated 02.02.2008 whereby the petitioners were directed to be ejected on the ground of violation of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Areas) Land Transfer Regulation 1959. Questioning the said order, the petitioners herein filed an appeal before the first respondent on 25.07.2011 along with an application for stay. 2. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that no orders are passed on the said stay application and that the petitioners are apprehending dispossession in pursuance of the order dated 02.02.2008 passed by the second respondent, referred to above. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader. 4. There is no dispute that the appeal is pending with the first respondent against the order dated 02.02.2008, referred to above and since it is a first appeal involving civil rights, as claimed by the petitioners, it is just and proper for the first respondent to hear and dispose of the application for stay at least. In view of the fact that the hearing and disposing of the appeal may take some time, the petitioners being left with no alternative, have approached this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the other respondents in Case.No.8/CTR/2008, aggrieved by the order dated 02.02.2008, filed similar appeal and since no orders were passed on the stay application, they had filed WP.No.7495 of 2008 before this Court, which was disposed of by order dated 28.04.2008 granted status quo to be maintained while directing the first respondent to entertain, hear and decide the appeal. Learned counsel further states that the petitioners herein, who are also similarly situate like the petitioners in the above writ petition, have filed the present appeal on 25.07.2011 but neither the appeal nor the stay petition is being taken up for hearing. 6. In view of the fact that the impugned order herein is already subject matter of a separate appeal by other respondents and covered by the order of this Court, referred to above, I deem it appropriate to pass an identical order in this case as well, as under. 7. In these set of circumstances, I consider it appropriate to direct the first respondent to entertain, hear and decide the appeal preferred against the orders of the Agency Divisional Officer, Bhadrachalam dated 02.02.2008 within three 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 first respondent to independently consider the interlocutory application moved by the writ petitioners herein and decide the same even before it decides the appeal preferred to it. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 23, 2011 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 26.08.2011 (B/o) DSK