IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 19202 of 2008 Between: 1 Boggavarapu Murahari Rao, s/o. Late Laxminarayana, H.No. 8-2-401, R & B Road, Bandarugudem, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District. 2 Ravoori Ranga Rao, S/o. Late Venkata Subba Rao, H.No. 8-2-402 & 8-2-403, R & B Main Road, Bandarugudem, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District. 3 Bolukonda Murali, S/o. Late Venkataramaiah, H.No. 8-2-404, R & B Main Road, Bandarugudem, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District. 4 Rayala Rani, W/o. Late Satya Babu, H.No. 8-2-405, R & B Main Road, Bandarugudem, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District. 5 Buddi Ramakrishna, S/o. Late Rayamallu, H.No. 8-2-406, R & B Main Road, Bandarugudem, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Addl. Agent to Government-cum-Project Officer, Integrated Tribunal Develoopment Agency, (ITDA) at Bhardrachalam, Khammam District. 2 The Special Deputy Collector (TW), Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 3 The Tahsildhar, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District. 4 The Station House Officer, Manuguru Police Station, Khammam District. 5 Bandaru Nageswar Rao, S/o. Late Chinnabbai, R/o. Bandarugudem, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District. 6 Bandaru Chinna Venkaiah, S/o. Thirumalaiah, R/o. Bandarugudem, Manuguru Mandal, 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 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondent No. 1 herein not granting stay of the operation of the order dt. 30-11-1987 and 6-A Case dated 12-3-2008 in Case No. 232/MGR/87 of the 2nd respondent herein and in not disposing o the appeal and stay application as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonble, contrary to the principles of natural justice and the provisions of AP Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations and the provisions of AP Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations and also violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents 2 to 4 herein not to evict the petitioners No. 1 to 5 from house bearing 8-2-401, 8-2-402 & 8-2-403, 8-2-404, 8-2-405 and 8-2-406 of land in Sy.No. 228, 209 and 222 situated at R & B Main Road, Bandarugudem, Manuguru Taluka, Khammam District respectively, pending disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioners herein before the 1st respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.MADAN MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent-Additional Agent to the Government-cum-Project Officer in neither granting stay of the operation of the order dated 30.11.1987 in Case No.232/MGR/87 and the order dated 12.3.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent-Special Deputy Collector nor disposing of the appeal filed by the petitioners, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to evict the petitioners from their houses situated at R & B Main Road, Bandarugudem, Manuguru Taluka, Khammam District pending disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioners before the 1st respondent. The writ petitioners assert that earlier they filed W.P.No.9362 of 2008 seeking stay of the order dated 30.11.1987 in Case No.232/MGR/87 and the order dated 12.3.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent, and this Court, by its order dated 1.5.2008, while disposing of the said writ petition, held to the following effect: “Therefore, the balance of convenience would lie in allowing the petitioners to continue to occupy the said Houses till 31.8.2008 by which time, the 1st respondent-Additional Agent to the Government and Project Officer, ITDA, Bhadrachalam should dispose of the appeal preferred by the writ petitioners. For any reason, if the appeal is not to be disposed of, the 1st respondent shall hear the stay application, by providing an opportunity to the opposite party to contest the same, any time prior to 15.7.2008”. Now, the petitioners’ main grievance is that in spite of the order dated 1.5.2008, passed by this Court in W.P.No.9362 of 2008, the 1st respondent has not disposed of either the appeal or the stay application filed by them, and further, taking the advantage of non-disposal of the appeal or the stay application, respondents 2 to 4 are trying to evict the petitioners from their houses. Heard the learned counsel for the both the parties and perused the material placed on record. This Court, on 25.11.2008, directed the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare to get instructions as to the stage of appeal filed by the petitioners. On instructions, the learned Government Pleader submits that the appeal and the stay petition are coming up for hearing on 6.12.2008. In the light of the said submission, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present writ petition with the following directions: “The 1st respondent-Additional Agent to Government-cum-Project Officer is hereby directed to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioners, within a period of two weeks from today. If, for any reason, he is not in a position to dispose of the appeal, he shall decide the stay petition, within the stipulated period, and pass appropriate orders. Till such time, the petitioners’ possession of the houses in question shall not be disturbed”. In terms of the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ 02.12.2008 Note: Furnish copy by tomorrow B/o bcj