IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 28075 of 2008 Between: Malla Gopi S/o. Late Venkataramana R/o. Narasipatnam Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Paderu, Visakhapatnam District. 2 Agency Divisional Officer & Special Deputy Collector (T.W.) Paderu, Visakhapatnam 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 1st the respondent to pass orders in A.S.No.61/2004 on the file of the Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Paderu, consequentially, communicate the orders passed if any, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : ORDER According to the petitioner, his father purchased the property in question in the year 1969, vide registered sale deed for a valuable consideration of Rs.9,000/- from the owners, who are non-tribals. However, suo motu proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the Andhra Pradesh Schedule Area Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970, and after a detailed enquiry, the authority upheld the contention of the Tahsildar and accordingly, ordered eviction of the petitioner. Questioning the said order, the petitioner approached the appellate authority and filed an appeal being A.S.No.61 of 2004 as early as in the year 1994. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, the appeal was heard on 28.10.2006. But, no orders have been passed. In the meanwhile, as the appellate authority has not granted any stay, the original authority is trying to evict the petitioner from the land in question. Hence, he approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner approached the appellate authority and filed A.S.No.61 of 2004, a duty is cast upon the appellate authority to dispose of the said appeal at the earliest. But from what is stated, it is clear that the appeal is pending before the appellate authority for the last more than two years and the original authority i.e., the Tahsildar is trying to evict the petitioner in view of the orders passed by the 2nd respondent. This, in my considered view, is unwarranted. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner pending disposal of A.S.No.61 of 2004 on the file of the 1st respondent-Project Officer, ITDA, Paderu. Having regard to the fact that the appeal was filed as early as in the year 2004, it was heard on 28.10.2006, but no orders have been passed, the appellate authority i.e., 2nd respondent is hereby directed to issue notice to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, afford an opportunity of personal hearing to him and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter. No costs. __________ 24-12-2008 Note: Issue CC by one week (B.O) rkk