The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.18880 of 2011 Date: 22nd November, 2011 Between: Datla Gopalakrishnam Raju ..... Petitioner and 1.The Additinoal Agent to the Government (Project Officer, ITDA), Bhadrachalam, Khammam Dist. and 4 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.P.V.Ramana Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 4:GP for Social Welfare Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri K.Sarath Counsel for respondent No.2: ---- Counsel for respondent No.5: Sri P.Raghavender Reddy, SC for Gram Panchayat The Court made the following : O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside Order, dated 25-06-2011, in LTR No.1 of 2011, as without jurisdiction. I have heard Sri P.V.Ramana, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, representing respondent Nos.1 and 4. The petitioner has started construction of a house, at Bhadrachalam, which is governed by the Agency laws. Respondent No.2, who belongs to Scheduled Tribe, made a complaint to respondent No.1 that the petitioner has transferred certain landed property to respondent No.3 contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 (for short ‘the Regulations’). Responding to the said complaint, respondent No.1 has registered LTR.No.1 of 2011 and, by the impugned Order, granted interim stay of construction over the said land. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed. The petitioner has raised the plea that the Regulations do not empower respondent No.1 to grant any interim order pending adjudication of the complaint and therefore, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. The learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, representing respondent Nos.1 and 4, on the basis of the various averments contained in the counter-affidavit, submitted that even in the absence of express power under the Regulations, respondent No.1, who is the custodian of the interests of the Tribes in the Agency areas, is entitled to pass an interim order as an incidental/ ancillary power to the main power of declaring any transfer as void and order ejection. Inasmuch as the order passed by respondent No.1 is purely interim in nature, this Court is of the opinion that it may not be necessary to adjudicate on the respective pleas of the parties at this stage. Admittedly, the main case i.e., LTR.No.1 of 2011 is pending before respondent No.1 and in pursuance of the interim order passed by respondent No.1, the construction over the subject land is stalled for more than five months. In this situation, it would be in the interests of justice that respondent No.1 disposes of the main case itself in a time bound manner. This order, however, shall not be understood as this Court upholding the power of respondent No.1 to pass such an order. In the premises as above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to complete the enquiry and pass final order in LTR No.1 of 2011 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, WPMP.Nos.22800 and 32722 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 22nd November, 2011 Note: Furnish CC in one week. (B/o) LUR