THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION No.12811 of 2003 Dated:07.06.2007 Between: Dodda Rama Rao, S/o.Late Lachiah. …Petitioners and The Mandal Revenue Inspector, and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION No.12811 of 2003 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) Action was initiated under Section 3(1)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (Regulation No.I of 1959), against the mother of the petitioner in LTR Case No.59/98/PNK and LTR Case No.662/92/PNK by the Special Deputy Collector (TW), Paloncha. By order dated 06.01.1999, action against the mother of the petitioner, Dodda Suseelamma, was dropped, against which, an appeal, being C.M.A.No.5 of 2001, was filed by Pasal Venkata Laxmi, which was allowed by the Agent to Government, Khammam, on 20.06.2002. This order is assailed in the Writ Petition. It is brought to the notice of this Court that Dodda Suseelamma initially filed a revision petition, being C.R.P.No.2953 of 2002, against the order of the Agent to Government. By an order, dated 10.03.2003, this Court disposed of the same giving liberty to Dodda Suseelamma to avail alternative remedy by filing revision. She then filed revision before the Government against C.M.A.No.5 of 2001 along with a stay application. When orders were not passed thereon, she again filed W.P.No.8609 of 2003 seeking a declaration that non-disposal of the stay application is illegal. By order dated 02.05.2003, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition directing not to evict the petitioner therein for a period of two months and further directed the Government to dispose of the revision petition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Curiously, the petitioner again challenges this order alleging that he is in possession of the land admeasuring Ac.0.02 guntas, and that this land is different from the land admeasuring Ac.0.32 guntas from which his mother was ordered to be evicted. Notwithstanding such plea, we hold that against the same order another revision petition would not lie. If so advised, it is always open to the petitioner to file appropriate application in the revision petition filed by Dodda Suseelamma against C.M.A.No.5 of 2001 to get impleaded. We make it clear that if the revision petition is already disposed of, the petitioner may seek redressal from the Government by filing separate application. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _____________________ (G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J) 07.06.2007 vs