HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.24533 of 2006 Date: 16-8-2011 Between Gonda Lakshmi and another … Petitioners and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Social Welfare & Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.24533 of 2006 Order: Though the matter is listed under the caption “INTERLOCUTORY”, in view of the pendency of the appeal/revision before the 1st respondent, this writ petition is disposed of at this stage. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the order dated 01-9-2006 of the 2nd respondent-Additional Agent to Government & Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Paderu, Visakhapatnam district. By the aforesaid order, the Additional Agent to Government in exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 read with Rule 8(1) of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Rules, 1969 ordered eviction of the 2nd petitioner herein from the land admeasuring Ac.0-35 cents covered by Survey No.74/5 of Padmapuram village, Arakuvalley Mandal and further ordered restoration of the said land in favour of the 4th respondent. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner is the owner and possessor of the aforesaid land and there is no violation of the provisions of Regulation (1) of 1959 and also Rules made thereunder. The petitioners have filed an appeal/revision before the 1st respondent against the order of the 2nd respondent-Additional Agent to Government and Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Paderu, Visakhapatnam district and on the plea that inspite of an application no interim orders are passed, this writ petition was filed in the year 2006 and this Court at the stage of admission by order dated 24-11-2006 directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession of the land. 4. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that transfer of the land was in violation of the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations, 1959 and the transfer of the land in favour of the 1st petitioner is a benami at the instance of the 2nd petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Additional Agent to Government and the 4th respondent should not be deprived of the possession of the land in question. 5. In view of the pendency of the appeal/revision before the 1st respondent, it is not desirable to record any finding on merits and the allegation of violation of the provisions by the petitioners under the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Act, 1959 and Rules made thereunder. 6. As it is the case of the petitioners that since the date of purchase of the land, they are in possession of the same and in view of the pendency of the appeal/revision before the 1st respsondent and having regard to the interim orders passed by this Court dated 24-11- 2006, which order continued all along, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent for disposal of the appeal/revision filed by the petitioners against the orders dated 01-9-2006 passed by the 2nd respondent-Additional Agent to Government and Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Paderu, Visakhapatnam district, within a period of two months from today. There shall be a further direction that the 4th respondent herein shall stand impleaded as a party respondent in the appeal/revision pending before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent would dispose of the appeal/revision after giving opportunity to both the petitioners as well as the 4th respondent. I direct the parties to maintain status quo, which shall continue till final orders are passed by the appropriate authority. 7. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 16th August, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.24533 of 2006 16th August, 2011. (Ak)