IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 2405 of 2009 Between: Vombolu Peavenkata Rao S/o. Late Sree Ramulu R/o. Indukurupeta Village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Addl. Agent to Government (The Project Officer) East Godavari District at Rampachodavaram 2 The Tahsildar, Devipatnam Mandal, E.G. District. 3 The Government of A.P. Social Welfare (LTR-2) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus suspending the order of the respondent No.1 in CMA No. 148 of 2005 dt. 6-12-2008 pending statutory revision filed by the Petitioner on 10-1-2009 on the file of the 3rd Respondent Government against the said Order in CMA No. 148 of 2005 dt. 6-12-2008. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.R.SANKU & KAVITI MURLI KRISNA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2405 OF 2009 ORDER: The only grievance of the petitioner is that aggrieved by the orders made in L.T.R.P.Nos.392 of 2002 and 383 of 2004, dated 14.06.2004 and 12.08.2005 respectively, on the file of the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District, he filed C.M.A.No.148 of 2005 and the same was also dismissed on 06.12.2008 by the 1st respondent-Additional Agent to Government, East Godavari District at Rampachodavaram. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred a statutory revision before the 3rd respondent-Government and during pendency of the revision, he also filed a stay petition seeking suspension of the orders of the 1st respondent. However, the stay petition is not yet disposed of. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. According to the petitioner, the transactions in dispute have taken place much prior to the Act 1 of 1970 came into force and throughout the proceedings and even as of now he is in possession of the property. 3. In view of the pendency of the revision petition before the 3rd respondent, it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 3rd respondent to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, pending disposal of the revision petition, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the schedule land. 4. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 16.02.2009 v v