THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.572 of 2011 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondents. This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in taking steps to dispossess the petitioner pursuant to the order, dated 30.08.2010, passed by the second respondent – Agency Divisional Officer, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District, in LTRP.No.133 of 2007, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims that she is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Hectare 1.04 Ares covered by Survey No.478/1 situated at Indukuru Village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District. It is her case that there is no transfer of that land in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 (for short ‘the Regulation’). It is stated that the second respondent by order, dated 30.08.2010, in LTRP.No.133 of 2007, ordered eviction of the petitioner by recording a finding that her possession over the said land is in contravention of the Regulation. It is also stated that as against the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the first respondent – Additional Agent to the Government, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District, on 09.09.2010 and also application seeking interim orders. On the ground that the appellate authority has not passed any order either on the interim application or on the appeal filed by the petitioner, she approached this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the second respondent in the order, dated 30.08.2010, recorded a finding that the land in question belongs to the Government, as such, no proceedings are maintainable under the provisions of the Regulation. It is also submitted that in any event, there is no transfer of the land in question in contravention of the Regulation, as such, the second respondent has passed orders of eviction illegally and arbitrarily. In view of pendency of the appeal before the first respondent, it is not desirable to record any finding on the pleas of the petitioner. As much as it is the case of the petitioner that the land in question was inherited by her and further, the second respondent has ordered to take the said land into Government custody and taking into account the pendency of the appeal, preferred by the petitioner, which is a substantive remedy as provided in the Regulation itself, I deem it appropriate to direct the first respondent to dispose of the appeal, as expeditiously as possible, by giving a notice of hearing and opportunity to the petitioner. Further, there shall be a direction to the respondents that till disposal of the appeal by the first respondent, the order of eviction, dated 30.08.2010, passed by the second respondent in LTRP.No.133 of 2007 shall remain suspended. There shall also be a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to cultivate the land in question till the appeal filed by her is disposed of by the first respondent. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 21st JANUARY, 2011. kvni