IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 7495 of 2008 Between: 1 Md.Habeeb S/o. Maqbul R/o. Chinturu (V & M), Khammam District. 2 M.Perumallu S/o. Mohana Rao R/o. Chinturu (V & M), Khammam District. 3 Obilineni Rama Rao S/o. Narasaiah R/o. Chinturu (V & M), Khammam District. 4 Reddy Satyanarayana S/o. Appalasewamy R/o. Chinturu (V & M), Khammam District. 5 Md.Ushman Pasha S/o. Hameed R/o. Chinturu (V & M), Khammam District. 6 Yelisetty Vijaya Kumar S/o. Raghava Rao R/o. Chinturu (V & M), Khammam District. 7 Medeapalli Sudhakar Rao S/o. Subba Rao R/o. Chinturu (V & M), Khammam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Additional Agent To the Government-cum-Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Bhadrachalam, Khamma District. 2 The Agency Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Collector, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 3 The Tahsildar, Chinturu Mandal, Khammam District. 4 Karam Buchaiah S/o. Veeraiah, R/o. Chinturu Village and Mandal, Khammam Dsitrict. .....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 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not passing the orders either in the stay petition or in the Appeal filed by the petitioners herein on 29.3.2008 against the impugned orders passed by the 2nd respondent herein in LTR Case No. 8/CTR/2008, Dt. 02.02.2008 in respect of the land in Sy.No. 44/3 of Chituru Village and mandal, khammam District, to an extent of Ac. 1-45 cts, is illegal and void and opposed to Art. 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders in the appeal filed by the petitioners herein dt. 29-3-2008 till such time suspend the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dt. 02.02.2008. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP for Social Welfare The Court made the following O R D E R: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare. The Agency Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Collector, Bhadrachalam passed orders in his proceedings in L.T.R.Case No.8/CTR/2008 against the writ petitioners herein on 02.02.2008 ordering their ejectment from out of the land of an extent of Ac.1.45 cents in Survey No. 44/3 of Chinturu Village and Mandal, Khammam District. It is not in dispute that against this order of the Special Deputy Collector, an appeal is provided to the Additional Agent to the Government, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation Act, 1959. The writ petitioners have asserted that such an appeal had been preferred on 29.03.2008 and along with the appeal, an interlocutory application was also moved seeking stay of the operation of the orders of the Special Deputy Collector dated 02.02.2008, but the 1st respondent did not choose to pass orders either on the stay petition or in the main appeal. Therefore, the present writ petition has been instituted. Once an appeal is preferred to the 1st respondent, it is only expected that it will be attended to at the earliest convenient time. If the appeal itself cannot be decided, the interlocutory application moved by the parties seeking urgent interim orders could be attended to in the meantime. In these set of circumstances, I consider it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent to entertain, hear and decide the appeal preferred against the orders of the Agency Divisional Officer, Bhadrachalam dated 02.02.2008 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the status quo existing as of now with regard to possession be maintained. It is, however, open to the 1st respondent to independently consider the interlocutory application moved by the writ petitioners herein and decide the same even before it decides the appeal preferred to it. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 28th April 2008 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}