IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12684 of 2008 Between: Chikkala Benna Swamy, S/o. Venkanna, Molleru Village, Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional agent to government And project officer, ITDA, Ramachodavaram, East Godavari District. 2 The Special Deputy Collector Tribal Welfare, Ramachodavaram, East Godavari District. 3 The Tahasildar, Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 4 Redoju Veeramma, W/o. late veeraswamy, age not known, Molleru Village, Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. .....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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent is not passing orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 17-05-2008 as illegal, unjust and improper and further declare the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 2-5-2008 in L.T.R.P. No. 24/2005 as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and against to the principles of natural justice and contrray to the Regulation 1 of 59 as amended by Regulation 1 of 70 and consequently set-a-side the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BADANA.BHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 12684 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the inaction of the Additional Agent to Government cum Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Agency (I.T.D.A.) at Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District-1st Respondent in taking up the appeal filed by him under the provisions of A.P. Schelduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 as amended by Regulation 1/1970. 2. The petitioner is in possession of Ac. 5-82 cents in Survey No. 221/4 of Molleru village, Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. It is his ancestral property. The Special Deputy Tahasildar, Tribal Welfare, Gangavaram, filed a complaint before the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Rampachodavaram-2nd Respondent under the provisions of Regulation 1 of 59 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 for restoration of possession of the land to the Government. 2nd Respondent by order dated 19-12-2000 made in LTRP No. 57 of 1999 dismissed the case holding that possession of the land by the petitioner is not hit under Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by 1 of 1970. Again on a complaint made by Redoju Veeramma-4th Respondent proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner by the Special Deputy Collector, (TW), Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District-2nd Respondent for eviction on the ground that he is in possession of the land contrary to the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation Rules, 1959 as amended by Regulation 1/1970. The second respondent conducted enquiry and ordered for his eviction and directed him to vacate the land by order dated 2-5- 2008. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the 2nd Respondent, the petitioner filed C.M.A. before the Additional Agent to the Government and the Project Officer-1st Respondent. He also moved application seeking interim stay pending disposal of the appeal. Since, the 1st Respondent failed to consider his appeal as well as the application seeking interim relief, the petitioner approached this Court, by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the Respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in possession of the land for over 50 years and therefore, the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1959 as amended by Regulation 1/1970 is not applicable to him. 6. I am not inclined to go into the merits of the case, since the appeal filed by him is stated to be pending before the 1st Respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the 1st Respondent to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be status quo existing as on this day with regard to the possession of the land till disposal of the appeal or interlocutory application filed by the petitioner, whichever is earlier. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 19th June, 2008. C.C. in two days B/o KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 12684 OF 2008 19th June, 2008.