IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22822 of 2008 Between: M/s Golden Tobacco Ltd., Company, Rep by its G.P.A. Holder, P.Munikesava Rao, S/o. Shanker Rao, aged 41 years, R/o. Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Agency Divisional Officer, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 2 The Additional Agent to the Government , (Project Officer, I T D A ) Bhadrachalam, Khmamma District. 3 The Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Office, Bhadrachalam, Khmamma District. 4 Bhagavan Sweets, Rep by its Manager, G.S.Shanker Rao, R/o.Bhadrachalam, Khmamma District. 5 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretarit, Hyderabad. .....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, Order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 6th respondent Government in not disposing the statutory appeal ﬁled against the orders passed by the Additional Agent to Government in C M A No.231 of 2007 dated 21-6-2008 , dispatched on 17-9-2008 and communicated on 29-9-2008 conﬁrming the orders passed by the Agency Divisional Oﬃcer, in L.T.R. Case No.3/Bhadrachalam/2004, dated 28-4-2008 for eviction in respect of Rs.No.72/1, to an extent of 0.20 cents with building situated at Ambedkar Center, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District and interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner by the Oﬃcial Respondent as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 and 300(A) of the Constitution of India and consequentially declare that the Respondents cannot dispossess the writ petitioner from the property in question pending disposal of the Revision before the Revisional authority and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.V.RAMANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by M/s. Golden Tobacco Limited Company represented by its G.P.A Holder assailing the inaction of the 5th respondent in passing appropriate orders on the stay application ﬁled by the petitioner pending revision preferred against the orders dated 21.6.2008 passed in CMA No.231 of 2007. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. It purchased an extent of Ac.4-00 under registered sale deed, dated 2.12.1969. The Settlement Oﬃcer, Bhadrachalam in R.S.No.72/1 dated 15.6.1979 granted Ryotwari Patta in favour of the petitioner. An extent of Ac.1.45 cents was taken over by the Government for the purpose of construction of Agriculture Market Committee. The remaining extent of Ac.2-55 cents is in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner-Company. While so, proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner-Company for ejectment on the ground that the possession of the petitioner-company over Ac.2-55 cents of land in R.S.No.72/1 is contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Schedule Areas) Land Transfer Regulations 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. The primary authority found possession of the petitioner-Company is contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Schedule Areas) Land Transfer Regulations 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. The petitioner preferred an appeal being C.M.A.No.231 of 2007. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal conﬁrming the order passed by the primary authority. The petitioner-Company preferred revision before the 5th respondent and also moved an application seeking stay of operation of the order passed by the primary authority as conﬁrmed by the appellate authority. While so, the Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Oﬃce, Bhadrachalam is taking steps to evict the petitioner from the land in dispute. Hence, this writ petition. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare received notice on behalf of R1 to R3 and R5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing on behalf of R1 to R3 and R5. The factual aspect of the petitioner ﬁling revision before the 5th respondent is not controverted by the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing on behalf of R1 to R3 and R5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 5th respondent to consider the revision ﬁled by the petitioner-company and pass appropriate orders. There shall be status quo existing as on this day with regard to possession of the land in dispute till the disposal of revision or stay application whichever is earlier. No costs. __________ 17-10-2008 Rkk.