IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20704 of 2008 Between: 1 Pasumarthi Kanakalingeswar Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, R/o. Gokavaram Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 Pasumarthi Satyabhimaraju, S/o. Subba Rao, R/o. Gokavaram Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 3 Pasumarthi V.V.S. Ramakrishna, S/o. Ramarao, R/o. Gokavaram Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Departmetn (LTR-II), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Agent to Government & District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 3 Addl. Agent to Government, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District. 4 Tahsildar, Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 5 Chidum Sriramulu, S/o. Sankuru Dora, Ojubanda Village, Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari 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 issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in taking steps to dispossess the petitioners from the land in taking steps to dispossess the petitioners from the land in an extent of Ac. 2- 17 cts in S.No. 8/1, Ac. 1-86 in S.No. 2/4, Ac. 5-23 cts, in R.S.No. 26/1 and Ac. 2-40 in S.No. 20/3 of Ozubanda Village, Gangavaram Mandal East Godavari District pending revision on the ﬁle of the 1st respondent against the orders of the 3rd resondent passed in CMA No. 26 of 2003 as illegal arbitrary and violative of natural justice consequently directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the said lands. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.V.S.PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been ﬁled by the petitioners, who are three in number, assailing the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess them from the lands in their occupation, pending disposal of the revision before the 1st respondent. The petitioners claim to be in possession of Ac.2.17 cents in Sy.No.8/1, Ac.2.40 cents in Sy.No.20/3, Ac.5.23 cents in Sy.No.26/1, Ac.2.17 cents in Sy.No.41/1 and Ac.2.68 cents in Sy.No.20/4 of Gokavaram Village & Mandal, East Godavari District. Proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners alleging that their possession is in contravention of the Andhra Pradesh Schedule Area Land Transfer Regulation 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. The primary authority found that their possession is in contravention of the Andhra Pradesh Schedule Area Land Transfer Regulation 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. They ﬁled appeal before the appellate authority and their appeal ended in dismissal conﬁrming the order of the primary authority. Thereupon, they ﬁled revision and the revision is stated to be pending consideration of the ﬁrst respondent. While so, the Tahsildar, Gokavaram Mandal is contemplating to dispossess the petitioners. Hence, this writ petition. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare received notice on behalf of R1 to R4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for R1 to R4. The factual aspect of petitioners ﬁling revision assailing the order passed by the primary authority as conﬁrmed by the appellate authority is not contradicted by the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for R1 to R4. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the revision and pass appropriate orders. There shall be status quo existing as on this day with regard to possession, pending disposal of the revision or the application ﬁled by the petitioners seeking stay of the orders passed by the primary authority as conﬁrmed by the appellate authority, whichever is earlier. No costs. __________ 23-09-2008 rkk