THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION No.9544 of 2002 Dated:07.06.2007 Between: M.Narsi Reddy, S/o.Veera Reddy. …Petitioner and Rekha Satyam, S/o.Rama Bhadraiah, and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION No.9544 of 2002 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is a non-tribal. He statedly purchased the land admeasuring Acs.10.00 in Survey No.150/19 situated at Gollagudem Village of Palvancha Mandal in Khammam District, under a registered document (sada sale deed) in 1966. He allegedly invested huge amounts and cultivating the land. The third respondent herein initiated action under Section 3(1)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (Regulation No.I of 1959), and passed orders on 25.07.1998 ordering eviction of the petitioner and restoration of the land in favour of respondents 1 and 2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner unsuccessfully filed an appeal under Section 3(3)(a) of Regulation No.I of 1959. His appeal was dismissed by the fourth respondent on 15.01.2001. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 6 of Regulation No.I of 1959 before the Government of Andhra Pradesh – fifth respondent herein. He also sought stay of the orders of the lower authorities. By impugned letter dated 08.03.2002 addressed to the Counsel for the petitioner, the application for stay was rejected/dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. This Court while admitting the Writ Petition on 21.05.2002 passed interim orders directing not to dispossess the petitioner. Though notices are served, respondents 3 to 6 have not filed any counter affidavit. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, we are convinced that pending revision if stay is not granted, revision itself would be rendered useless if ultimately the same is allowed in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, we direct that if the petitioner is still in possession of the land, he would continue to be in possession of the land till the revision is disposed of. As the revision petition filed by the petitioner is pending since 2002, it would be appropriate for the Government to dispose of the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be a direction to that effect. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _____________________ (G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J) 07.06.2007 Note: Issue C.C in one week. B/o. vs