IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 28087 of 2008 Between: 1 Guvvala Laxmi D/o.Late Nagaiah R/o.Yatapaka vilage Bhadrachalam Mandal,Khammam District 2 Nitta Parvathi W/o.Rambbu R/o.Yatapaka vilage Bhadrachalam Mandal,Khammam District 3 Kurnala Muthamma W/o.Venkanna R/o.Yatapaka vilage Bhadrachalam Mandal,Khammam District 4 Nune Seetharavamma W/o.Venkaiah R/o.Rayanypeta village Bhadrachalam Mandal,Khammam District 5 Kalabathuni Achamma W/o.Venkaiah R/o.Yatapaka village Bhadrachalam Mandal,Khammam District 6 Putti Venkata Krishna LR of P.Nagaratnam S/o.Rangaiah R/o.Yatapaka village Bhadrachalam Mandal,Khammam District 7 Putti Srnivasa Rao LR of N.Ngaratnam S/o.Rangaiah R/o.Yatapaka village Bhadrachalam Mandal,Khammam District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Additional to Government & Project Officer ITDA, Bhadrachalam,Khammam District 3 The Agency Divisonal Officer, Bhadrachalam 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not passing the orders either on the stay petition or on the main Appeal filed by the petitioners against the orders inCMA.No.291 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Agent ot Government-cum-Project officer, ITDA Bhadrachalam, Khammam District dated 21.6.2008 served on the petitioners on 31.10.2008 by confirming the orders passed by the Agency Divisional Officer, Bhadrachalam, in LTR Case No.4/BCM/2004 dated 21.11.2006 is illegal, and void and opposed to Articles, 14,19,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner land situated in SY.No.179/8P,179/12A,179/12AA ,179/13A,179/13A, 179/13AA,179/15 to an extent of Ac.4.59 cents of Yetapaka village, Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam District. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MUMMANENI.SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are seven in number, assailing the inaction of the 1st respondent in considering the revision filed by them against the order dated 21.5.2008 passed in CMA No.291 of 2007. The petitioners claim to be the owners and possessors of Acs.4-59 cents of land comprising Sy.No.179/8P, 179/12A, 179/12AA, 179/13A, 179/13AA, 179/15 of Yetapaka Village, Bhadrachalam Mandal. Proceedings have been initiated for ejectment on 21.11.2006 by the 3rd respondent, who is the primary authority, on the ground that their possession is in contravention of Andhra Pradesh Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. Questioning the same, they filed an appeal before the Additional Agent to the Government, Project Officer, ITDA, Bhadrachalam- 2nd respondent. The appellate authority, on reconsidering the material placed on record, did not find any valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the primary authority and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, they filed revision before the 1st respondent and also moved stay application. There being no action by the 1st respondent on the revision as well as the stay application, they approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing on behalf of R1 to R3 and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of R4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondents are contemplating to dispossess the petitioners from the land in dispute pending revision. The factual aspect of the petitioners filing revision before the 1st respondent is not in dispute. 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 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending consideration of the said revision, the respondents shall not interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in question. No costs. __________ 24-12-2008 Note: Issue CC by three days. (B.O) rkk