HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.1521 of 2008 Dated: January 29, 2008 Between: Gangula Devubai, W/o. late Sri G. Shankar, aged about 58 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Arli (K) village, Talamadugu Mandal, Adilabad District. … Petitioner And The Revisional Authority under APSALTR-cum- The Additional Secretary to the Government, Govt. of A.P., Social Welfare (LTR-2 Dept.), Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. … Respondents Order: This writ petition has been filed seeking Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in trying to evict the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.4.02 guntas in Sy.No.11/B of Arli (K) village, Talamadugu Mandal, Adilabad District, pursuant the order dated 28-10-1996, passed by the third respondent in Case No.TWA2/P23/92, in exercise of powers under A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations 1/59 as amended by Regulation 1/70 (for short ‘the regulations’), as confirmed by the second respondent by order dated 07-07-1997, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the land in question was purchased by petitioner’s late husband from one T. Radhabai, by sale deed dated 25-02-1969. It is stated that since then they have been in possession of the said land and after the death of her husband, petitioner has been in possession of the same. The primary authority, i.e. the third respondent passed order dated 28-10-1996 evicting the petitioner from the land in question on the ground that the transfer was in violation of the Regulations and ordered that the said land be taken into the custody of the Government. It is stated that as against the said order, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the second respondent, Agent to Government, which ended in dismissal on 07-07-1997. Further, the petitioner carried the matter in revision and filed revision petition before the first respondent-Government and it is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the Hon’ble Minister for Tribal Welfare heard the matter on 16-08-2007 and reserved it for judgment. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the matter was heard, no orders have been communicated to her and steps are being taken to evict her from the land in question. 5. In view of the pendency of the revision petition before the first respondent, it is not desirable to record any finding on the merits of the case. As it is stated that the land in question was purchased long back and since then petitioner has been in continuous possession, I dispose of the writ petition directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the second respondent, in accordance with law. I further direct the respondents not to enforce the order of eviction passed against the petitioner till appropriate final orders are passed in the revision petition. It is made clear that after the revision petition is disposed of, it is open for the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. January 29, 2008 Note: Furnish C.C. tomorrow. B.O. MRR