THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.22064 of 2009 Dated: 15.10.2009 Between: Sri Datla Venkata Rama Raju. … Petitioner. And The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. … Respondents. ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.16.14 gts. in Sy.No.26 situated at Ramanujavaram village, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District, having purchased the same from the original owner Prathivaadi Bhyankara Raghunaadha Chary under a Will deed. While that being so, the 3rd respondent-Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District, at the instance of one B.Suryanarayana Raju, has initiated proceedings in L.T.R.Case No.79/2008/MGR against the petitioner, for his ejectment from the subject land, on the allegation that his possession over the said land is contrary to the provisions of the A.P.Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970, but however, ultimately, the said proceedings were dropped, by orders dated 30.05.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the 4th respondent- Tahsildar, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District, preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.60 of 2008 before the 2nd respondent-Additional Agent to Government, Bhadrachalam, and the same was allowed vide orders dated 29.08.2009, setting aside the orders dated 30.05.2008 and directing the 4th respondent to take over the subject land into Government custody and assign the same to the eligible Tribals under a cover of panchanama as per rules in force. The grievance of the petitioner is that challenging the orders of the 2nd respondent, he preferred revision petition, along with stay petition, before the 1st respondent-Government of Andhra Pradesh, but so far no orders are passed either on the stay petition or the revision petition is taken up for disposal, and pending the said revision, he is being dispossessed from the subject land by the respondents. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondents. Having regard to the fact that the revision petition preferred by the petitioner before the 1st respondent is pending consideration, without expressing any opinion on merits, I deem it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the orders dated 29.08.2009 of the 2nd respondent, as expeditiously as possible. Till then, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ N.V.RAMANA,J 15.10.2009 v v