IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1056 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 03/08/2007 in WP NO : 11558 OF 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Chirala Bapaiah Panthulu, S/o. Deekshithulu, R/o. Kamarajupeta Village Gokavaram Mandal E.G.District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Special Deputy Tahsildar (T.W), Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer Gannavaram E.G.District. 3 The District Collector East Godavari Kakinada. 4 Dulla Pedda Abbai, S/o. Veeranna, Kamarajupeta, Gokavaram Mandal, E.G. District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRI K.VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1056 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ appeal is filed questioning the order, dated 3.8.2007 in WP No.11558 of 2005. The appellant herein is the 4th respondent in the writ petition. Originally, the above writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner- 4th respondent herein seeking to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2 in preparing the Dandora Report-cum-Mediators report dated 18.3.2005 dispossessing him from his land, without notice, as illegal and arbitrary, on the ground that he is a resident of Kamarajupeta village of Gokavaram mandal, E.G.District and he is in possession of land admeasuring Ac.4.39 cents in Sy.No.70 situated at Yamanapalli village of Gangavaram Mandal, for more than two decades and that he claims to be a tenant of Avasarala Seetharamayya and on a complaint given by the 1st respondent, the Deputy Collector initiated action in LTRP NO.1 of 1994 for his ejectment and after conducting the enquiry, action was dropped and that in 2004, the Special Deputy Collector initiated action in L.T.R.P.No.s.41 of 2004 and 54 of 2004 against one Tenali Venkateswara Rao under the regulation and ordered ejectment of Tenali Venkateswara Rao from the suit schedule land and while so, the 1st respondent prepared a Dandora report to the effect that the writ petitioner has been ejected from the land measuring Ac.4.62 cents pursuant to the orders of the Special Deputy Collector in LTRP No.41 of 2004. The learned Single Judge having observed that at every stage, the revenue officials and the officials of Tribal Welfare Department, who were entrusted the duty to protect the economic interest of the tribals in the agency areas, did not follow the rules properly and all the officials either were negligent or failed to be more diligent while dealing with such matters and that when LTRP No.1 of 1994 was dropped and in LTRP No.41 of 2004 ejectment of one Tenali Venkateswara Rao was ordered, by quoting the same number the writ petitioner is recorded as ejected and that the petitioner, who claims to be the tenant of Avasarala Seetharamayya, is in possession and was able to continue in possession by reason of various orders, the same cannot be faulted and unless and until he is evicted by due process of law either duly executing an order passed under Section 3 (2) of the Regulation or by reason of the orders passed by the Government after considering the revision filed by the 4th respondent, the writ petitioner is entitled to continue in possession and enjoy the fruits from it and of course, if the petitioner herein is not in possession of the land, as alleged by the learned Counsel for the fourth respondent, the land should be kept in Government custody and insofar as the revision petition filed by 4th respondent against the orders in C.M.A.No.41 of 2004 is concerned, if the same is still pending, the Government must expedite the disposal of the same, disposed of the writ petition. Having aggrieved by the same, the 4th respondent in the writ petition filed the present appeal. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. On a perusal of the material on record, it is obvious that the appellant is in no way aggrieved person and the revision petition filed by the appellant against the orders in C.M.A.No.41 of 2004 is pending. In view of the pendency of the revision petition and in the facts and circumstances of the case, We see no merits to entertain this appeal and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ___________________________ Justice C.V. Nargarjuna Reddy Dated: 23.1.2009 gurc. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1056 of 2008 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 23rd January, 2009