THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.3680 of 2009 Dated 21st April, 2011 Between: Duggampudi Krishna Reddy and another …Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Prdesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Tribal and Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Social Welfare Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri P.V.Ramana The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a prohibition to restrain the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem from proceeding with O.S.No.121 of 2009, including I.A.No.94 of 2009, as the same was without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Article 300-A and Schedule V of the Constitution of India. At the hearing, Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Madakam Venkateswara Rao and others v. Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem, Khammam District and another[1] in support of his submission that the Courts constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 have no jurisdiction to entertain the suits raising disputes in respect of the property situated in scheduled areas in the State. Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, who filed the suit in question, submitted that the said judgment has been questioned in S.L.P.Nos.13380-13386 of 2000 and while ordering notice, the Supreme Court has stayed the operation of the judgment. This submission has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In my opinion, with the stay of operation of the judgment of this Court, the Court at Kothagudem will continue to have the power and jurisdiction to proceed with the suit. However, it is left open to the petitioners to move the Court below under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, after the disposal of the SLP or the civil appeal, as the case may be, by the Supreme Court depending upon its result. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, the interim orders, dated 25.02.2009, granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.Nos.4791 and 4792 of 2009, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.Nos.4791 and 4792 of 2009 and W.V.M.P.Nos.1411 and 1412 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 21st April, 2011 VGB [1] 2000 (5) ALD 32