IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 20998, 21180 of 2007 & 14816 of 2008 WRIT PETITION No.20998 of 2007 BETWEEN: Chikkala Rupavathi …Petitioner AND The Additional Agent to Government, East Godavari District And others. …Respondents WRIT PETITION No. 21180 of 2007 BETWEEN: Bommili Suramma …Petitioner AND The Additional Agent to Government, East Godavari District And others. …Respondents WRIT PETITION No.14816 of 2008 BETWEEN: Kankipati Mulaiah …Petitioner AND The Additional Agent to Government, East Godavari District And others. …Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 20998, 21180 of 2007 & 14816 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner in W.P.No.20998 of 2007 was in possession and enjoyment of Acs.2.64 cents of land in Survey No.241/3 of Jaddangi Village of Rajavommangi Mandal in East Godavari District. Respondents 4 and 5 therein approached the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Rampachodavaram – the 2nd respondent herein, by filing L.T.R.P.No.150 of 2002 for eviction of petitioner from the land. The 2nd respondent dismissed the L.T.R.P. through order dated 22.02.2002. Aggrieved thereby, respondents 4 and 5 filed C.M.A.No.49 of 2005 before the Additional Agent to the Government, Rampachodavaram – the 1st respondent herein. The appeal was allowed on 06.01.2007. The petitioner states that though two months time is stipulated for filing revision before the Government, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajavommangi – the 3rd respondent herein evicted her on 07.01.2007 itself. She contends that such an action is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, apart from being contrary to the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Rules, 1969 (‘the Rules, for brevity). The grievance of the petitioner in W.P.No.21180 of 2007 is almost similar, though her case is slightly different on facts. At the instance of the 4th respondent in that writ petition, the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Rampachodavaram – the 2nd respondent took up L.T.R.P.No.9 of 2000. The 4th respondent ordered eviction of the petitioner from the land in Survey No.253/2 of Sarabavaram village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District admeasuring 235 cents by an order dated 14.08.2002. The petitioner, therefore, filed C.M.A.No.53 of 2005 before the Additional Agent to the Government – the 1st respondent. The appeal was dismissed on 17.09.2005. It is represented that on the next day itself, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Devipatnam Mandal – the 3rd respondent evicted the petitioner and inducted the 4th respondent into possession. The petitioner in W.P.No.14816 of 2008 states that the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Tribal Welfare), Devipatnam – the 2nd respondent filed L.T.R.P.No.163 of 2004 before Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Rampachodavaram for restoration of possession of Acs.5.67 cents of land in Survey No.238/1 of Kambalapuram Village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District in favour of the 3rd respondent. The case was dismissed on 30.11.2004. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent filed C.M.A.No.90 of 2005 before the Additional Agent to the Government, Rampachodavaram. The appeal was allowed through an order dated 06.01.2007. The petitioner states that on the next day itself, the Tahsildar, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District – the 1st respondent dispossessed him from the land and issued D-Form Patta in favour of the 3rd respondent. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader and learned counsel for the contesting respondents. The petitioners certainly have a genuine grievance. They have been evicted from their lands within one day after the appellate authority passed orders. The Rules prescribe the procedure for enforcement of orders for eviction. After the order for eviction becomes final, proceedings are to be initiated before the concerned revenue authorities for execution. The rules require that notice must be issued to the affected parties. This would be possible only after the time for preferring an appeal or revision, as the case may be, expires. As a matter of fact, the Additional Agent to the Government, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari issued circular dated 30.11.2007 directing that the authorities have to wait till the time stipulated for filing appeal or revision expires, before orders of eviction are enforced. The action of the concerned Tahsildars in evicting the petitioners from their lands even before the petitioners were supplied with the copies and time for preferring the revision expires, is patently illegal. However, more than two years have been elapsed ever since the petitioners were dispossessed. Return of possession to the petitioners at this stage, even while the revisions are pending, would lead to complications. Instead, the revisional authority, i.e. the Government can be required to dispose of the revisions immediately. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the revisional authority i.e. the Government to dispose of the revisions filed by the petitioners within six (06) weeks from today. In case the revisions filed by the petitioners are not disposed of despite the petitioners being ready to cooperate, the 1st respondent in all the writ petitions, i.e., the Additional Agent to the Government, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District shall be under the obligation to re-induct the petitioners into possession of the land, duly issuing notices to the effected parties. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY December 17, 2009 BVV