HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3018 of 2008 Dated 15th February, 2008 Between Perugu Mallesh …Petitioner and The Spejcial Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) Bhadrachalam, Khammam District and ors …Respondents. THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3018 of 2008 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning the eviction order dated 31- 8-2007 passed in case LTR No.234/2007/KGM by the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Bhadrachalam, Khammam District in exercise of powers under the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1/1959, as amended by Regulation 1/1970. The petitioner claims ownership and possession over the land in an extent of Ac.2.20 guntas covered by Sy.Nos. 96/39, 96/40 and 96/41 of Sarwaram village of Kothagudem Mandal in Khammam District. It is stated that the said land is his ancestral property and the same was devolved on him. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no transfer of the said land within the meaning of A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1/1959, as amended by Regulation 1/1970, and the very initiation of proceedings under the said Regulation is per se illegal. It is stated in the eviction order that in spite of service of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that against the order of eviction dated 31-8-2007 passed in case LTR No.234/2007/KGM, the petitioner has preferred appeal before the second respondent-appellate authority. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of appeal is preferred against the eviction order, no order have been passed by the appellate authority either on the appeal or stay application, and, on the other hand, the respondents are taking steps to enforce the order of eviction. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Though it is stated in the eviction order 31-8-2007 passed in case LTR No.234/2007/KGM that in spite of service of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner, but, from a perusal of the order of eviction passed by the first respondent, there are no definite findings with regard to violation of the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1/1959, as amended by Regulation 1/1970. As much as it is stated that against the eviction order, the petitioner has preferred appeal before the second respondent- appellate authority, it is not desirable to go into the grounds of appeal and record any finding on the said transaction. In that view of the matter, I dispose of the Writ Petition directing the second respondent- appellate authority to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 25-1-2008 against the order of eviction dated 31-8-2007 passed in case LTR No.234/2007/KGM as expeditiously as possible. Further, there shall be a direction to the respondents not to enforce the order of eviction dated 31-8-2007 till the disposal of the appeal and allow the petitioner to be in possession of the land in question. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No order as to costs. ---------------------------------- JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY DATE: 15-2-2008. Msnr.