IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22901 of 2008 Between: Smt. Suvarnakanti Janaki W/o. Mohana Rao, D/o. Late Mandal Ramulamma, Age:38 R/o. H.No.4-4-207, Gandhi Colony, Chunchupalli Grampanchayat, Kothagudem. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Prl. Secretary to Govt. Tribal Welfare Dept. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Addl. Agent to Govt. & Project Officer I.T.D.A. Bhadrachalam, Khammam Dist. 3 The Spl. Dy. Collector Tribal Welfare Bhadrachalam. 4 The Tahsildar Mulakalapalli Mandal Khammam Dist. .....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 writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus, declaring the in action of the 1st respondent in passing appropriate orders on the Revision itself ﬁled on dt.06-10-2008 against the order of 2nd respondent dated 28-7-2007 in C.M.ANo.51 / 2005 as illegal arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequentially direct the respondent No.1 to consider and dispose of the Revision itself with in a reasonable time and also further direct the respondents not to dispossess me from possession and enjoyment of the subject property in S.No.43 measuring extent of Acs.1-26 kts., situated at Annaram Village of Mulakalapalli Mandal, pending disposal of the revision on the ﬁle of the 1st respondent, and may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Smt. Suvarnakanti Janaki, assailing action of the Tahsildar, Mulakalapalli Mandal, Khammam District in trying to dispossess her from the land bearing Sy. No. 43 admeasuring Ac.1.26 guntas situated at Annaram village, Mulakalapalli Mandal, pending revision before the ﬁrst respondent. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.1.26 guntas comprised in Sy. No. 43 situated at Annaram village, Mulakalapalli Mandal. Proceedings have been initiated against her for eviction from the land in her occupation on the ground that her occupation is in contravention of the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. The Primary Authority conducted enquiry and found possession of the petitioner over the land in question in contravention of the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. The petitioner preferred an appeal being CMA No. 51 of 2005. The Additional Agent to Government and Project Oﬃcer, ITDA, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District, entertained the appeal and proceeded to dismiss the appeal and conﬁrmed the order passed by the Primary Authority. Thereupon, the petitioner ﬁled a revision before the ﬁrst respondent and also moved application seeking stay of the order passed by the Primary Authority, as conﬁrmed by the Appellate Authority. Pending, revision, the Tahsildar, Mulakapalli Mandal, the fourth respondent herein, initiated steps to eject the petitioner from her lands. Hence, the writ petition. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare received notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of Respondents 1 to 4. The factual aspect of the petitioner ﬁling revision before the ﬁrst respondent is not in dispute. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the ﬁrst 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 the possession of the land in dispute till disposal of the revision or the stay application, whichever is earlier. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ B.Seshasayana Reddy, J. October 21, 2008 Operative portion by wire at party’s costs //BO// MAS