IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22571 of 2008 Between: Smt. Koduri Usha Rani W/o. Satyanarayana R/o. Venkateswara Colony, Bhadrachalam, Khammam Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Agency Divl. Officer Bhadrachalam Khammam Dist. 2 The Addl. Agent to the Govt. Project Officer, ITDA. Bhadrachalam, Khammam Dist. 3 The Tahsildar Mandal Revenue Officer Bhadrachalam, Khammam Dist. 4 Agreem Car Tobacco Board Bhadrachalam, Khammam Dist. 5 The Govt. of A.P. Rep. by its Prl. Secretary Tribal Welfare Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....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 in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5th respondent Government in not disposing the statutory appeal ﬁled against the orders passed by the Addl. Agent to Govt. in C M A. No.234 of 2007 dated 21-6-2008, dispatched on dt.17-9-2008 and communicated on dt.29-9-2008 conﬁrming the orders passed by the Agency Divl. Oﬃcer, in L.T.R. Case No.8 / Bhadrachalam / 2004, dated 27-4-2008 for eviction in respect of 750 Square Yards (0.15 cents) in Survey No. 22/1 of Bhadrachalam, Khammam Dist. as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 and 300(A) of the Constitution of India and consequentially declare that the Respondents cannot dispossess the Writ Petitioner from the property in question, pending disposal of the Revision before the Revisional authority. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.V.RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been ﬁled by Smt. Koduri Usha Rani, assailing the action of the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department-5th respondent in not disposing of the revision ﬁled against the orders passed by the Additional Agent to Government (Project Oﬃcer, ITDA), Bhadrachalama-2 nd respondent in C.M.A.No.234 of 2007 dated 21.06.2008. The petitioner claims to be in possession of 750 sq. yards (Ac.0.15 cents) in Sy.No.22/1 situated at Bhadrachalam Village of Khammam District by constructing a house in the said land. O n e Bellamkonda Kalanabhudu was the owner of land admeasuring Acs.5.00. After the death of said Kamalabahudu, his daughter Smt. Dasari Mahalaxmi succeeded the land. They executed three sale deeds in favour of three persons, namely, Chandaluri Subba Rao, Thummalapalli Venkata Krishna Rao, and Tanguturi Rama Subbaiah, to an extent of Ac.2.00 in the year 1967. On 1.12.1967 the said three persons sold the land by way of agreement of sale in favour of three persons and delivered the possession on the same day and subsequently got it registered on 20.05.1970. The said persons gifted an extent of Ac.0.16 cents of land in favour of the father of the petitioner Mulpuri Nageswara Rao, on 26.12.1969, in recognition of faithful services rendered by him to them in running Tobacco business. The petitioners constructed a house in the land. Proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner in L.T.R.No.8/Bhadrachalam/2004, dated 27.04.2007 on the ground that the possession of the petitioner over the land is in contravention of Andhra Pradesh Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner ﬁled statutory appeal in C.M.A.No.234 of 2007 on 25.06.2007 along with stay petition. When the respondent did not grant stay, the petitioner ﬁeld W.P.No.21009 of 2007, which was disposed of on 11.10.2007 protecting her interest, pending disposal of the statutory appeal. The appellate authority disposed of the appeal on 21.06.2008 conﬁrming the order of the primary authority. The petitioner ﬁled revision before the 5th respondent-Government and also moved an application seeking stay of operation of the order passed by the primary authority as conﬁrmed by the appellate authority. Pending the revision, Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Oﬃce, Bhadrachalam-3 rd respondent is contemplating to dispossess the petitioner from the land in her occupation. 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 R3 & R5. The factual aspect of ﬁling revision by the petitioner before the 1st respondent is not controverted by the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of R1 to R3 & R5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 5th respondent to consider the revision ﬁled by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. There shall be status quo existing as on this day with regard to possession of the land in dispute till the disposal of revision or stay application, whichever is earlier. No costs. __________ 17-10-2008 rkk