IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22661 of 2008 Between: Tummala Bhaskar Rao, S/o. Subbaiah, R/o. Asannagudem Village, Dammapeta mandal, Khammam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Principal Secretry to Government, Tribunal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabd. 2 The Additional Agent to Government & Project Officer, I.T.D.A Bhadrachalam, Khamma District. 3 The Secial Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Bhadrachalam. 4 The Tahsildar, Dammapet Mandal, Khammam District. 5 Potta Yeriyappa S/o. Venkappa, R/o. Thottipampu Village, Dammapeta 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 to issue writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus, declaring the in action of the 1st respondent in passing appropriate orders either on the stay petition or on the Revision itself ﬁled on 06-10-2008 against the order of 2nd respondent dated 28- 06-2008 in C.M.A. NO.66/2007 as illegal arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequentially direct the respondent No.1 to consider and dispose of the Revision itself with in a reasonable time and also further direct the respondents, not to dispossess petitioner from possession and enjoyment of the schedule property in S.No.1294 measuring extent of Acs.9-11 Gts, situated at Nagupali Village of Kammapeta Mandal, pending disposal of the revision on the ﬁle of the 1st respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been ﬁled by Tummala Bhaskar Rao assailing the action of the Tahsildar, Dammapet Mandal, Khammam District-4th respondent in trying to dispossess him from the land in his occupation pending revision before the 1st respondent. The petitioner claims to be in possession of Acs.9.11 guntas in Sy.No.1294 situated at Nagupalli Village, Dammapeta Mandal. Proceedings were initiated against his father in respect of Acs.9.11 guntas vide LTR Case No.1201 of 1975 and the same were ended in favour of his father. Again in the year 2000, the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Bhadrachalam-3rd respondent initiated proceedings against his father on the representation made by a tribal and the proceedings came to be dropped on 14.3.2001. The 3rd respondent initiated proceedings against his brother on the ground that his possession over the land is in contravention of Andhra Pradesh Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 and the proceedings came to be dropped on 19.10.2005. Against the order, dated 19.10.2005, 5th respondent ﬁled appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent entertained the appeal as CMA No.66 of 2007. In the meantime, his brother died after receipt of summons from the 2nd respondent. 2nd respondent proceeded to allow the appeal thereby declaring that the possession of his brother over the land is in contravention of Andhra Pradesh Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970, and ordered for ejectment of his brother’s son or any body in possession of the land in dispute. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner ﬁled revision before the 1 st respondent. While so, the Tahsildar, Dammapet Mandal, Khammam District-4th respondent is contemplating to dispossess the petitioner from the land in dispute. Hence, the writ petition. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare received notice on behalf of R1 to R4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing on behalf of R1 to R4. The factual aspect of petitioner ﬁling revision before the 1st respondent is not controverted by the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of R1 to R4. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the revision ﬁled by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. There shall be status quo existing as on this day with regard to possession of the land in dispute till the disposal of the revision or stay application whichever is earlier. No costs. __________ 17-10-2008 rkk