IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13484 of 2008 Between: 1 Doddapuneni Lakshmaiah S/o.late Pitchaiah R/o.Vootupalli Village, Chandrugonda Mandal, Khammam District. 2 Doddapuneni Nageswara Rao S/o.late Krishnaiah R/o.Vootupalli Village, Chandrugonda Mandal, Khammam District. 3 Doddapuneni Viswanadham S/o.late Pitchaiah R/o.Vootupalli Village, Chandrugonda Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of AP, rep. by its Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Additional Agent to Government & Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 3 The Agency Divisional Officer ( Revenue Divisional Officer) Kothagudem, Khammam District. 4 The Tahsildar, Chandrugonda Mandal, Khammam 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 or direction preferably writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not passing appropriate orders either on the stay petition or on the revision itself filed on 11.3.2008 against the order of 2nd respondent dt. 27.10.2007 in C.M.A.No.70/2005 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the stay petition or the revision itself within a reasonable time and further direct the respondents or their subordinate staff not to dispossess us from possession and enjoyment of the property in Sy.No.101/Sha/Pik measuring an extent of Acs. 2-00 Kts situated at Vootupalli Village, Chgandrugonda Mandal of Khammam Dist., pending disposal of the revision on the file of the 1st respondent, and pass any other order this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : ORDER The petitioners are the owners and possessors of Ac.2-00 cents of land comprising in Sy.No.101/Sha/Pik of Vootupalli Village, Chgandrugonda Mandal, Khammam District. The petitioners have acquired the said land by way of succession from their grand father. Their grand father purchased the said land from one K.Sudershan Rao under a registered sale deed on 20.03.1960 prior to commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1970. The Special Deputy Collector (TW), Polancha suo moto taken up LTR Case No.F/45/90/CHG against the petitioners. Subsequently, the said proceedings were dropped on the ground that the land transfer had taken place in between non-tribal to non-tribal. Again, the Agency Divisional Officer-3rd respondent upon the representation of a tribal taken up proceedings in LTR Case No.64/90/CHG against the grand father of the petitioners on the ground that his possession is in contravention to the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 as amended by Act 1 of 1970 and ordered for eviction of the grand father of the petitioners by order dated 16.3.2002. Their grand father died long prior to the initiation of the said case by the 3rd respondent. The petitioners challenged the order of ejectment by filing an appeal before the Additional Agent to the Government-2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal vide order dated 27.10.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed a statutory revision before the 1st respondent and the same is pending. Since the revision and the application have not been taken up by the revisional authority, the petitioners choose to approach this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondents. The factual aspect of pendency of the revision filed by the petitioners before the 1st respondent is not in dispute. Such is the situation, I deem it appropriate to direct the first respondent to dispose of the revision as expeditiously as possible. There shall be status quo with regard to possession of the land in question pending disposal of the revision or interlocutory application seeking stay of the order passed by the 2nd respondent, whichever is earlier. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. _________ 26-06-2008 rkk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Government of AP, rep. by its Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Additional Agent to Government & Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 3 The Agency Divisional Officer ( Revenue Divisional Officer) Kothagudem, Khammam District. 4 The Tahsildar, Chandrugonda Mandal, Khammam District. 5.2CD copies