Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.20210 of 2009 Dated 26th July, 2011 Between: Yathavakilla Ramadevi …Petitioner And Government of A.P., reptd by its Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and four others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri R.Kameswara Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP for Social Welfare Counsel for respondent Nos.5 : None appeared The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare that the Lambada community is not a Scheduled Tribe Community within the meaning of Section 2(f) of A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (for short ‘the Regulation 1959’) as the same was not notified in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 by the President of India under Article 342(1) of Constitution of India. The petitioner sought for a consequential declaration that order, dated 01.06.2009, in I.A.No.8 of 2009 in C.M.A.No.14 of 2009 passed by respondent No.2 is illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner is in occupation of lands admeasuring Ac.2-11 guntas in Sy.No.1318/4 and Ac.1-33 guntas in Sy.No.138/4 of Chunchupalli Village, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District. At the instance of respondent No.5, respondent No.3 has initiated proceedings for eviction of the petitioner under the Regulation 1959 read with Regulation 1 of 1970. Through his order dated 21.04.2009, respondent No.3 has rejected the said application on merits. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.5 filed an appeal before respondent No.2. He has also filed I.A.No.8 of 2009 seeking stay of the order of respondent No.3. Respondent No.2 has stayed the order of respondent No.3 till disposal of the appeal. At the hearing, Sri R.Kameswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, advanced two fold submissions namely (1) that respondent No.5 belongs to Lambada community which is not included within the definition of Scheduled Caste under Section 2(f) of the Regulation 1959 and also not included in the notification issued under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, and (2) that respondent No.3 having rejected the appeal of respondent No.5, no purpose will be served by granting an order of stay and that in the guise of such an order, respondent No.5 is seeking to interfere with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the property in question. In my opinion, this writ petition is wholly misconceived because the petitioner has already succeeded before respondent No.3 in convincing him to reject the ejection application of respondent No.5. The statutory appeal filed by respondent No.5 is, admittedly, pending before respondent No.5. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to raise all legally permissible pleas before the appellate authority including the one that respondent No.5 does not belong to Scheduled Tribe as notified by the Presidential Order and consequently, he does not fall within the definition of ‘Scheduled Tribe’ under Section 2(f) of the Regulation1959. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is wholly pre-mature as it is only in the event of respondent No.2 passing an order adverse to the interest of the petitioner that the cause and occasion for her to raise above noted plea would arise. As regards the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, though, prima facie, it appears that with the rejection of the application of respondent No.5 for the petitioner’s ejection, staying such an order will not serve any purpose, still the petitioner could have approached respondent No.2 with an appropriate application for vacating the said order if respondent No.5 was trying to take undue advantage of such an order. Ordinarily, this Court would not entertain a writ petition by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with an ad interim order passed pending appeals before the statutory authorities. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the proceedings before respondent No.2 at this stage and grant the reliefs claimed in this writ petition. For the above mentioned reasons and subject to the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.26375 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 26th July, 2011 DR