IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 26471 of 2008 Between: Pittala Malleswari W/o.Late Rajaiah R/o.Sundarayyanagar, Manuguru Vilage and Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Additional Agent to Government (Project Officer, ITDA), Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 2 The Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 3 The Tahsildar, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District. 4 Gandham Narsaiah R/o. Manuguru, Khammam District, Died and no notice need to be sent to him and he has no LRs. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent in not granting stay of the Order dt. 19.8.2005 in Case No.253/03/MNGR/349/03 of the 2nd respondent herein, in the Appeal filed before him on 29.10.2008, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation, as amended, and also violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction to the 1st respondent herein to stay the operation of the said above order of the 2nd respondent herein pending disposal of the above said Appeal before him. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.RAJAMALLA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not granting stay of the order dated 19.8.2005 in Case No.253/03/MNGR/349/03 passed by the 2nd respondent-Special Deputy Collector, as arbitrary and illegal, and a consequential direction to the 1st respondent-Additional Agent to Government-cum-Project Officer to stay the order dated 19 .8.2005 pending disposal of the Appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner asserts that her father purchased an extent of Ac.4.13 guntas of land in S.No.507 situated in Manuguru village and Mandal, Khammam District from the 4th respondent, a non tribal, under a registered sale deed dated 2.1.1969. In the year 1975, at the time of the petitioner’s marriage, her father gave Ac.01.00 cents of land out of Ac.4.13 guntas to the petitioner towards Pasupu Kunkuma and she constructed a house therein and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of it. While so, the 4th respondent filed a Case No.253/03/MNGR/349/03 before the 2nd respondent-Special Deputy Collector seeking eviction of the petitioner from her land, and the 2nd respondent, without issuing any notice to her, passed an order dated 19.8.2005 ejecting the petitioner from her land and further directed that the immovable property in question be taken into Government Custody under cover of panchanama and assigned to the eligible Tribals. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18674 of 2006, and this Court, by its order dated 4.12.2006, directed the petitioner to file an Appeal before the 1st respondent- Additional Agent to Government. In pursuance of the direction of this Court, she preferred an appeal on 29.10.2008 along with a petition to condone the delay in preferring the Appeal and also an application for stay of the order, dated 19.8.2005. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that so far the 1st respondent has neither passed any order in the stay petition nor disposed of the appeal, and further, the 4th respondent taking advantage of the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent, is threatening to dispossess her from the property in question. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. Apparently, the impugned order was passed by the 2nd respondent in the year 2005 and the appeal was preferred by the petitioner in the year 2008. Of course, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner still continues to be in possession of her property. Hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: “If the petitioner is really in possession of the property in question, she shall not disturbed for a period of eight weeks. Meanwhile, the appellate authority i.e. the 1st respondent may dispose of the petition to condone the delay in preferring the appeal and also the stay application in accordance with law.” In terms of the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ 04.12.2008 Note: Furnish copy in one week B/o bcj