IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 6641 of 2008 Between: Sri Gangula Rami Reddy S/o.Subba Reddy R/o.T.Kothagudem village, Pinapaka Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P. 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, Pinapaka 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 25.2.2008 against the order of 2nd respondent dt. 27.10.2007 in C.M.A.No.71/2005 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 petitioner from possession and enjoyment of the property in Sy.No.36/A, 36/AA, 36/E, 37/A, 37/AA, 37/E, 38/A, 38/AA and 38/E measuring an extent of Acs.0-19 gts, Acs. 0-19 gts, Acs.0-19 gts, Acs.0-13 gts, Acs.0-13 gts, Acs.0-13 gts, Acs.0-14 gts, Acs.0-15 gts, Acs.0-15 gts, respectively total admeasuring Acs.3-19 situated at Veerapuram Village, Pinapaka Mandal of Khammam District, pending disposal of the revision on the file of the 1st respondent, and pass any other order this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice. 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 petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare. The Special Deputy Collector, Bhadrachalam passed orders in his proceedings in LTR Case No. 95/2004/PNK against the writ petitioner herein on 16.03.2005 ordering his ejectment from out of the land of an extent of Ac.0.19 guntas, Ac.0.19 guntas, Ac.0.19 guntas, Ac.0.13 guntas, Ac.0.13 guntas, Ac.0.13 guntas, Ac.0.14 guntas, Ac. 0.15 guntas and Ac.0.15 guntas in Survey Nos. 36/A, 36/AA, 36/E, 37/A, 37/AA, 37/E, 38/A, 38/AA and 38/E of Veerapuram Village, Pinapaka 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 petitioner has 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 16.03.2005. The appeal filed by the petitioner in C.M.A.No. 71 of 2005 has been dismissed by the 2nd respondent by an order dated 27.10.2007 directing the Tahsildar, Pinapaka 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 petitioner 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 27.10.2007 on or before 31st July 2008. 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 petitioner 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) 28th March, 2008 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}