IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 9209 of 2008 Between: 1 Kosaraju Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Bapanaiah, R/o. Yathalakunta Village, Sathupalli Revenue Mandal, Khammam District. 2 Kosaraju Lalithamma, S/o. Late Bapanaiah, R/o. Yathalakunta Village, Sathupalli Revenue 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 Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 4 The Tahsildar, Sathupally 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. 17-11-2007 in CMA Nos. 22/2005 and 23/2005 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.54 measuring an extent of Acs. 20-00 gts and Acs.5-00 gts respectively total measuring Acs. 25-00 gts situated at Yathalakunta Village of Sathupaly Mandal, Khammam District pending disposal of the revision on the file of the 1st respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar Counsel for the Respondents : GP for Social Welfare The Court made the following O R D E R: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare. The Special Deputy Collector, Bhadrachalam passed orders in his L.T.R.Case No.998/94/SPL & 999/94/SPL against the writ petitioners herein on 26.02.1996 ordering their ejectment from out of the land of an extent of Ac.25.00 in Survey No. 54 of Yathalakunta Village of Sathupally Mandal, Khammam District. It is not in dispute that against this order of the Special Deputy Collector, an appeal is provided to the Additional Agent to the Government and Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Bhadrachalam, Khammam District under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation Act, 1959. The writ petitioners have asserted that such an appeal had been preferred and along with the appeal, an interlocutory application was also moved seeking stay of the operation of the orders of the Special Deputy Collector dated 26.02.1996. The appeals filed by the petitioners in C.M.A.Nos. 22 and 23 of 2005 have been dismissed by the 2nd respondent by an order dated 17.11.2007 directing the Tahsildar, Sathupally Mandal to take over the possession of the scheduled land and assign the same to the eligible tribals. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the 2nd respondent, the writ petitioners preferred a revision before the Government – 1st respondent along with an interlocutory application. It is asserted that the Government of Andhra Pradesh is so preoccupied with other pressing works and consequently, is not in a position to take up the revision preferred and no interlocutory orders could be obtained by the writ petitioner. In the meantime, the Special Deputy Collector and his subordinate officers are threatening the writ petitioner to vacate from out of the scheduled land. Therefore, the present writ petition has been instituted. Once a revision is preferred to the Government, it is only expected that it will be attended to at the earliest convenient time. If the revision itself cannot be decided, the interlocutory application moved by the parties seeking urgent interim orders could be attended to in the meantime. It is no doubt true that the Government is preoccupied with more pressing and important public functions, but that is no justification for not entertaining the revisions pending before it. In these set of circumstances, I consider it appropriate to direct the Government to entertain, hear and decide the revision preferred against the orders of the Additional Agent to the Government dated 17.11.2007 within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the status quo existing as of now with regard to possession be maintained. It is, however, open to the Government to independently consider the interlocutory application moved by the writ petitioners herein and decide the same even before it decides the revision preferred to it. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 25th April 2008 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}