IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22570 of 2008 Between: Puvvada Satyanarayana, S/o. Pedanarasimha Rao, R/o. Udaya Bhaskara Road, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Agency Divisional Officer, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 3 Additional Agent to the Government and Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 4 The Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Office, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 5 Towdisetty Rajeswara Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, R/o. Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the in-action of the ﬁrst respondent Government in not disposing the revision ﬁled by the petitioner as against the orders passed by the Primary Authority i.e. Agency Divisional Oﬃcer, Bhadrachalam in L.T.R. Case No. 11/BCM/2004 dated 21-11-2006 and the orders passed by the Appellate Authority in CMA No. 236/2007 dated 21-6-2008 dispatched on 17-9-2008 and taking steps to evict the petitioner along with residential house from the suit schedle land to an extent of 2-95 acres situated in Survey No. 44 situated a Bhadrachalam Village and Mandal, Khammam District in spite of ﬁling Revision on 3-10-2008 along with stay petition 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 Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been ﬁled by Puvvada Satyanarayana assailing the action of the Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Oﬃce, Bhadrachalam- 4th respondent in trying to dispossess him from the land bearing Sy.No.44 admeasuring Ac.2.95 cents pending revision ﬁled by him before the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-1st respondent. The petitioner claims to be in possession of Ac.2.95 cents situated at Bhadrachalam Village of Khammam District having got the same under a registered Will, dated 24.12.1988 executed by Yelisetty Nagabhushanam. The said Yelisetty Nagabhushanam died on 31.1.1999 and since then, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac.2.95 cents. Proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner on the ground that his possession over the land is in contravention of Andhra Pradesh Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. The primary authority found that the possession of the petitioner is in contravention of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. The petitioner ﬁled an appeal being CMA No.236 of 2007 and also obtained interim orders pending the appeal. The appellate authority disposed of the appeal conﬁrming the order of the primary authority. The petitioner ﬁled revision before the 1st respondent and also moved application seeking stay of operation of the order passed by the primary authority as conﬁrmed by the appellate authority. Pending revision, Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Oﬃce, Bhadrachalam-4 th respondent is contemplating to dispossess the petitioner from the land in his occupation. 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 R4. The factual aspect of ﬁling revision by the petitioner, before the 1st respondent is not controverted by the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of R1 to R4. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1th respondent to consider the revision ﬁled by the petitioner 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