THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.3587 of 2009 Dated 14th July, 2011 Between: Jaigiri Ravinder and others …Petitioners And The Government of A.P., rep.by its Secretary to Government (TW), Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Ms.P.Santosh Kumari For Sri J.Prabhakar Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP for Social Welfare The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties having regard to the nature of the dispute raised in the writ petition. Even though notices on respondent Nos.5 to 8 have not been served, in the view this Court is proposing to take, it is not necessary to put these respondents on notice. The petitioners suffered an order of eviction from the lands admeasuring Acs.2.10 guntas in Survey Nos.451/A, 451/AA, 451/E and Ac.1.68 cents in Survey No.452/A, 452/AA, 452/E of Dandepally Village and Mandal, Adilabad District, under the provisions of the A.P.Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1970. The said order of eviction passed by respondent No.3 was questioned in appeal before respondent No.4, who passed order, dated 30.06.2007, confirming the order of respondent No.3. Questioning the said orders, the petitioners have moved respondent No.1 by way of revision petition. Respondent No.1 entertained the revision petition and initially granted stay on 21.09.2007. However, by order, dated 13.02.2009, the said order of stay was vacated. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. This Court by order, dated 25.02.2009, granted interim suspension of the eviction orders as confirmed in appeal. The Government and its officers have filed vacate stay application. In the counter affidavit, they have stated that after entertaining the revision petition and granting an interim order, respondent No.1 directed the petitioners to show-cause as to why the said interim order should not be vacated. The petitioners were also given a reminder on 02.01.2009 and that as the petitioners have not submitted their reply, respondent No.1 has vacated the interim order on 13.02.2009. In my opinion, since the revision petition filed by the petitioners before respondent No.1 is pending and the interim order granted by this Court is subsisting for substantially long time, it is appropriate that respondent No.1 disposes of the revision petition itself at an early date after hearing the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 to 8 and status quo as on today shall be maintained by all the parties till the disposal of the revision petition. Respondent No.1 shall dispose of the revision petition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.4667 and 15596 of 2009 and W.V.M.P.No.3289 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th July, 2011 VGB