HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.1126 of 2008 Dated: January 24, 2008 Between: Bulli Asha Reddy, S/o. Rajanna, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Tantoli village & Mandal, Adilabad District. … Petitioner And The Agent to the Government and Project Officer, ITDA, Utnoor, Adilabad District, and others. … Respondents Order: This writ petition has been filed seeking Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.2.23 guntas in Sy.No.84 of Tantoli village of Adilabad Mandal Adilabad District, pursuant the order dated 22-08- 2003, passed by the second respondent in Case No.TWA2/1006/96 in exercise of powers under A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations 1/59 as amended by Regulation 1/70 (for short ‘the regulations’), pending disposal of the appeal filed by him against the said order as arbitrary and illegal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. Petitioner claims to be the owner of the aforesaid land having purchased the same from the fourth respondent by registered sale deed dated 02-05-1969. The second respondent, Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) Utnoor passed the order dated 22-08-2003 evicting the petitioner from the said land on the ground that the same was transferred by one non-tribal to another, attracting the provision under sub-section 1 of Section 3 of the regulations, and ordered that the said land be taken into the custody of the Government. It is stated that against the order dated 22-08-2003, petitioner has filed an appeal before the first respondent, Agent to Government, on 23-01-2008, along with an application for stay. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no transfer of the land had taken place in violation of the Regulations, as alleged by the respondents, to order eviction of the petitioner from the land in question. It is alleged that the order of the second respondent was not served on the petitioner. It is further submitted that on one hand no orders have been passed either on the stay application or on the appeal and on the other, steps are being taken for assigning the land in question to third parties. 5. A perusal of the order dated 22-08-2003, passed by the second respondent, does not disclose any finding with regard to transfer of land in violation of the Regulations. 6. As much as the very Regulations provide for appeal and as it is stated that the petitioner has filed appeal before the first respondent on 23-01-2008 against the order of eviction passed by the second respondent, I dispose of the writ petition directing the first respondent, Agent to Government and Project Officer, ITDA, Utnoor to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 23-10-2008, against the order of eviction passed by the second respondent, in accordance with law. I further direct the respondents not to assign the land in question in favour of any third parties till the disposal of the appeal and status quo as on today with regard to possession of the land in question shall be maintained till such time. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. January 24, 2008 Note: Communicate operative portion by wire at party’s costs. B.O. MRR