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 : 22826 of 2008 Between: 1 Chadalawada Satyanarayana S/o.Venkata Ramaiah R/o.Kunavaram village and Mandal Khammam District 2 Smt.Chadalawada Bhanumathi W/o.late Hanumantha Rao R/o.Kunavaram village and Mandal Khammam District ..... PETITIONERS 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 The Additional Agent to the Government Bhadrachalam,Khammam District 4 The Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue office, Bhadrachalam Khammam District 5 Laxman Rao R/o.Gundala village,Bhadrachalam Mandal Khammam District 6 Yedla Sudarshan Rao R/o.Gundala village Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam District .....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 inaction 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 LTR. Case No.9 and 10/Bhadrachalam/2005 dated 16.3.2007 and the orders passed by the Appellate Authority, in CMA.No.9/2008 dated 21.6.2008 dispatched on 17.9.2008 to the counsel and communicated to the petitioner on 29.9.2008 and taking steps to evict the petitioner along with residential house from the suit schedule land to an extent of 3-40 and 3-40 total to an extent of 6.80 situated in SY.No.20 situated at Gundala village and Bhadrachalam 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 petitioners, who are two in number, assailing the inaction of the 1st respondent in passing appropriate orders on the stay application ﬁled by them pending revision preferred against the orders dated 21.6.2008 passed in CMA No.9 of 2008. Chadalawada Satyanarayana has sworn to the writ affidavit. It is stated in the writ aﬃdavit that his father, himself and his brother Ch.Hanumantha Rao have acquired the scheduled land to an extent of Ac.6-80 situated at Gundala Village of Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam District under a sale deed dated 5.7.1967. Since then, they are in possession and enjoyment of the said land. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds. While so, proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners for ejectment on the ground that their possession over Ac.6-80 cents of land in Sy.No.40 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 petitioners is contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Schedule Areas) Land Transfer Regulations 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. The petitioners preferred an appeal being C.M.A.No.9 of 2008. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal conﬁrming the order passed by the primary authority. The petitioners preferred 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. While so, the Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Oﬃce, Bhadrachalam is taking steps to evict the petitioners 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 learned Government Pleader for Revenue received notice on behalf of R4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing on behalf of R1 to R3 and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of R4. The factual aspect of the petitioners ﬁling revision before the 1st respondent is not controverted by the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing on behalf of R1 to R3. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the revision ﬁled by the petitioners 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. _________ 18.10.2008 Rkk.