IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 7912 of 2008 Between: Gudavarthi Venkateswara Rao S/o.late Pitchaiah R/o.Aswapuram village and Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Addl. Agent to Government, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 3 Special Deputy Collector (TW), Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 4 The Tahsildar (formerly Mandal Revenue Officer), Aswapuram Mandal, Khammam District. 5 Pareedali Khan S/o.Meer Mohammad Ali Saheb R/o. Aswapuram village and Mandal, Khammam District. 6 Muntha Mallaiah (died) by his LR] Muntha Satyamma. R/o. Aswapuram village and Mandal, Khammam District. 7 Uppala Venkanna R/o. Aswapuram village and Mandal, Khammam District. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent herein in not granting stay of the operation of the Order dt. 29.12.2007 in C.M.A.No.37/2007 on the file of the Court of the Addl. Agent to Government, Bhadrachalam, 2nd respondent herein confirming the Order dt. 18.10.2005 in Case No.35/02/ASPM on the file of the Court of the Special Dy. Collector, Bhadrachalam, 3rd respondent therein pending disposal of the Revision filed before him as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, contrary to the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation and also violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction to the respondents 1 to 4 herein not to evict the petitioner herein from the land admeasuring 8 acres situate in S.No.127/6/AA, Amerda Village, Aswapuram Mandal, Khammam District, and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP for Social Welfare The Court made the following O R D E R: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare. The Special Deputy Collector, Bhadrachalam passed orders in his Case No. 35/02/ASPM against the writ petitioner herein on 18.10.2005 ordering his ejectment from out of the land of an extent of Ac.8.00 in Survey No. 127/6/AA of Amerda Village of Aswapuram 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 and Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Bhadrachalam, Khammam District under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation Act, 1959. The writ petitioner has asserted that such an appeal had been preferred 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 18.10.2005. The appeal filed by the petitioner in C.M.A.No. 37 of 2007 has been dismissed by the 2nd respondent by an order dated 29.12.2007 directing the Tahsildar, Aswapuram Mandal to take over the possession of the scheduled land and assign the same to the eligible tribals. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the 2nd respondent, the writ petitioner preferred a revision before the Government – 1st respondent along with an interlocutory application. It is asserted that the Government of Andhra Pradesh is so preoccupied with other pressing works and consequently, is not in a position to take up the revision preferred and no interlocutory orders could be obtained by the writ petitioner. In the meantime, the Special Deputy Collector and his subordinate officers are threatening the writ petitioner to vacate from out of the scheduled land. Therefore, the present writ petition has been instituted. Once a revision is preferred to the Government, it is only expected that it will be attended to at the earliest convenient time. If the revision itself cannot be decided, the interlocutory application moved by the parties seeking urgent interim orders could be attended to in the meantime. It is no doubt true that the Government is preoccupied with more pressing and important public functions, but that is no justification for not entertaining the revisions pending before it. In these set of circumstances, I consider it appropriate to direct the Government to entertain, hear and decide the revision preferred against the orders of the Additional Agent to the Government dated 29.12.2007 within six 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 Government to independently consider the interlocutory application moved by the writ petitioner herein and decide the same even before it decides the revision preferred to it. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 11th April 2008 Note: Issue CC in one week. (bo) ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}