HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.1136 of 2008 Dated: January 24, 2008 Between: Acha Santosh @ Santobha, S/o. late A. Rajaram, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mediguda village, Jainbad Mandal, Adilabad District. … Petitioner And The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Govt. of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. … Respondents Order: This writ petition has been filed seeking Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.6.38 guntas in Sy.No.24/A of Kanpa Mediguda village of Jainad Mandal, Adilabad District, pursuant the order dated 24-07-1998, passed by the third respondent in Case No.TWA2/1118/96, in exercise of powers under A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations 1/59 as amended by Regulation 1/70 (for short ‘the regulations’), as confirmed by the second respondent by order dated 02-01-2007, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the land in question was purchased by petitioner’s father from one Menaji, S/o. Ashanna in the year 1967 and since then his father was in possession of the said land and after the death of his father, he has been in continuous possession. The primary authority, i.e. the third respondent passed order dated 24-07-1998 evicting the petitioner from the land in question and ordered that the said land be taken into the custody of the Government. It is stated that as against the said order, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the second respondent, Additional Agent to Government, which ended in dismissal on 02-01-2007. Further, the petitioner carried the matter in revision and filed revision petition before the first respondent-Government on 16-06-2007 along with an application for stay and it is stated that the same is pending consideration. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is no orders have been passed either on the stay application or on the revision and on the other, steps are being taken for assigning the land in question to third parties. 5. In view of the pendency of the revision petition before the first respondent, it is not desirable to record any finding on the various grounds raised in the writ petition, namely, that the transfer had taken place prior to coming into force of the Regulations etc. As it is stated that the land in question was purchased in the year 1967 and since then petitioner has been in continuous possession, any assignment in favour of third parties will result in further complications. 6. In that view of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition directing the first respondent to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner on 16-06-2007, against the order of the second respondent, in accordance with law. I further direct the respondents not to assign the land in question in favour of any third parties till the disposal of the appeal and status quo as on today with regard to possession of the land in question shall be maintained till such time. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. January 24, 2008 Note: Communicate operative portion by wire at party’s costs. B.O. MRR