IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4125 of 2008 Between: Pothula Peda Veerraju, W/o. Subbarao, R/o. Indukurupeta Village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Agent to the Government, Rampachodavaram, E.G. District. 2 The Agency Divisional Officer, Rampachodavaram, E.G. District. 3 The Tahsildar, Devipatnam, East Godavari District. 4 The Special Deputy Tahsildar, Tribal Welfare, Devipatnam Mandal, E.G. 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 appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in evicting the petitioner from the land to an extent Hec 0.16 and Hec. 0.12 cents in Sy.No. 86/2 and 86/4 respectively situated at Indukurupeta Village, Devipatnam Mandal,E.G. District as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and conseqently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from her land pending disposal of the appeal filed before the 1st respondent in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : Order: In this Writ Petition, petitioner questions the action of the respondents in taking steps for his eviction from the lands admeasuring Hec.0.16 and Hec.0.12 cents in Survey Nos.86/2 and 86/4 respectively situated at Indukurupeta Village, Devipatnam Mandal of East Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the claim of the petitioner that he purchased the above said lands from one Kadiyam Rama Rao, a non-tribal, in the year 1969 and was inducted into possession in the year 1969 itself, but however, a registered sale deed was obtained later in the year 1970. It is stated that ever since he purchased the said lands, he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. Subsequently, on a complaint made by the fourth respondent-Special Deputy Tahsildar, to the effect that the transfer of the said land in favour of the petitioner by Kadiyam Rama Rao, is in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970, proceedings were initiated by the second respondent-Agency Divisional Officer, Rampachodavaram, who vide order dated 21- 01-2008 in ADO LTR No.45 of 2007, ordered ejectment of the petitioner from the above said land, and directed the third respondent-Tahsildar to put the said property at the disposal of the State for onward assignment to eligible tribes. It is stated in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, that as against the order of eviction passed by the second respondent-Agency Divisional Officer, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the first respondent-appellate authority on 28th January, 2008, but however, no orders have so far been passed thereon. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite pendency of his appeal before the first respondent- appellate authority, respondents-authorities are taking steps for his eviction from the above said land pursuant to the impugned order of eviction passed by the second respondent. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Several grounds were raised by the petitioner that the land in question was purchased prior to 1970, and that the transfer of the same was not in contravention of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. It is also the case of the petitioner that there was no enquiry with regard to the lands in question and that notice was issued in connection with some other survey numbers, but however, final orders were passed in respect of the lands in question, for which, petitioner is seeking ownership, title and possession. Inasmuch as the petitioner has already preferred an appeal against the impugned order of eviction passed by the second respondent, and the same is pending consideration before the first respondent-appellate authority, it is not desirable, at this stage, to record any finding on the grounds of appeal raised by the petitioner. But however, as it is stated that the petitioner has purchased the land in question in the year 1969, and since then, he has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the same and that the appeal filed by the petitioner is still pending consideration, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the first respondent-appellate authority to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. However, the impugned order of eviction passed by the second respondent vide ADO No.45 of 2007 dated 21-01- 2008 shall remain suspended till disposal of the appeal and also the orders passed thereon are communicated to the petitioner. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R.Subhash Reddy, J) 28th February, 2008 lur ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Additional Agent to the Government, Rampachodavaram, E.G. District. 2 The Agency Divisional Officer, Rampachodavaram, E.G. District. 3 The Tahsildar, Devipatnam, East Godavari District. 4 The Special Deputy Tahsildar, Tribal Welfare, Devipatnam Mandal, E.G. District. 5 2CCs to the G.P. for Social Welfare. 6 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}