The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.32663 of 2011 Date: 13-12-2011 Between: Kari Koteswar Rao ..... Petitioner AND The Govt. of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, (Tribal Welfare dept.,) Secretariat, Hyderabad and 4 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP for Social Welfare Counsel for respondent No.5: Mr.P.V.Ramana The Court made the following : Order: The grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that even though respondent No.1 has entertained the appeal filed by him against Order, dated 19-11-2011, in CMA.No.11 of 2010, of respondent No.2, no order has, so far, been passed thereon. I have heard Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P.V.Ramana, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.5. The proceedings initiated by respondent No.3 for eviction of the petitioner from certain extents of lands in Chunchupalli Village, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District, ended in favour of the latter. The appeal being CMA.No.11 of 2010, filed by respondent No.5 against the order passed by respondent No.3 was allowed by respondent No.2 on 19-11-2011 and the petitioner’s eviction has been ordered. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the above-mentioned appeal along with the stay application. The very purpose of providing for statutory remedy is to ensure that the cause of the aggrieved party will not be rendered infructuous by not passing orders within reasonable time. As the petitioner is facing threat of eviction, consequent on the eviction order passed by respondent No.2, it is appropriate that his interests are protected till disposal of the appeal by respondent No.1. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the lands in question till the appeal filed by the petitioner against Order, dated 19-11-2011, in CMA.No.11 of 2010, is disposed of by respondent No.1 The learned Counsel for respondent No.5 has raised a serious apprehension of delay in disposal of the appeal. In order to balance the interests of both the parties, respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving notice to both the parties. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, WPMP.No.40602 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 13th December, 2011 LUR