The Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy Writ Petition No.18058 of 2009 Dated: 28-08-2009 Between: Gandipudi Venkayamma. ….Petitioner And 1.The Government of the State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Social Welfare, Department (LTR-2), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 2 others. …..Respondents ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of Mandamus to suspend the operation of Order, dated 13-04-2009, passed by the second respondent in CMA.No.12 of 2006, pending disposal of his statutory revision on the file of the first respondent. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. With their consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission. The petitioner claims that she is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0-50 cents covered by Survey No.194/2 situated at Pedabhempalli Village of Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District. On the ground that the purchase made by the petitioner is in contravention of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation Act, 1/59 as amended by 1/70, the primary authority i.e., the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, ordered eviction of the petitioner from the said land and restoration thereof into Government custody so as to assign the same to eligible tribals. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent-appellate authority, who vide Order, dated 13-04-2009, in CMA.No.12 of 2006, upheld the eviction order passed by the third respondent. As against the said order, the petitioner filed a revision before the first respondent and the same is pending. In this Writ Petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that though he filed an interlocutory application for grant of interim suspension of the impugned eviction order passed by the second respondent, neither the said application nor the main revision petition is being taken up for consideration and on the other hand, the officials of the respondents-authorities are taking steps to execute the said order for her eviction from the land in question. Though it is the case of the petitioner that the purchase of the said land is not hit by the provisions of Regulation 1/70, in view of pendency of statutory revision before the first respondent, it is not desirable to record any findings on merits at this stage. However, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the first respondent-revisional authority to dispose of the revision petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be further direction to the respondents to maintain status quo existing as on today with regard to possession of the land in question till the said revision petition is disposed of. It is also made clear that if the petitioner has not filed any revision as against the said eviction order, it is open for the respondents-authorities to take steps in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ________________ R.Subhash Reddy, J Dated 28th August, 2009 lur