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 : 22578 of 2008 Between: 1 Perala Venkateswarlu @ Sreenu S/o.Late Peramaiah R/o.Gundala Colony, Bhadrachalam Mandal Khammam District 2 Perala Venkanna S/o.Late Peramaiah R/o.Gundala Colony, Bhadrachalam Mandal Khammam District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by its Secretary,Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Additional Agent to Government & Project officer ITDA, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 3 The Agency Divisional Officer, Bhadrachalam , Khammam District 4 The Tahsildar, Bhadrachalam 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 inaction of the 1st respondent in passing appropriate orders either on the stay petition or on the revision itself ﬁled on 22.9.2008 against the order of 2nd respondent dated 21.6.2008 in CMA.No.5/2008 as illegal, arbitrary, and vioaltive 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 not to dispossess petitioners from possession and enjoyment of the subject property in S.No.153/1 & 200/2 measuring extent of Acs.3.35 gts and 4.38 gts respectively total measuring extent of Acs.7.73 cents situated at Pinapally village, Bhadrachalam Mandal,Khammam District pending disposal of the revision on the file of the 1st respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been ﬁled by the petitioners, who are two in number, assailing the action of the Tahsildar, Bhadrachalam-4th respondent in trying to dispossess them from the land bearing Sy.No.153/1 & 200/2 admeasuring Ac.3.356 gts. And Acs.4.38 gts, pending revision ﬁled by them before the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad- 1st respondent. The petitioners got Ac.3.356 gts. and Acs.4.38 gts, in Sy.No.153/1 & 200/2 situated at Bhadrachalam Vill;age and Mandal of Khammam District by way of inheritance. Proceedings have been initiated against them in L.T.R. Case No.14/BCm/2004 dated 22.01.2007 on the ground that their possession over the land is in contravention of Andhra Pradesh Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. The primary authority found that the possession of the petitioners over the lands is in contravention of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. The petitioners ﬁled appeal being CMA No.56 of 2008. The appellate authority disposed of the appeal by its order, dated 21.06.2008 confirming the order of the primary authority. The petitioners filed revision before the 1st respondent and also moved an application seeking stay of operation of the order passed by the primary authority as conﬁrmed by the appellate authority. Pending revision, Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Oﬃce, Bhadrachalam-4th respondent is contemplating to dispossess the petitioners from the land in his 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 R4. The factual aspect of ﬁling revision by the petitioners, before the 1st respondent is not controverted by the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of R1 to R4. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the revision filed by the petitioners 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