WP/28149/2007 of Kandula Laxmaiah, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 28 December 2007

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the prayer as follows:

“……to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any otherappropriate writ declaring the action of Respondent No.1 in notpassing any orders in the revision /stay petition filed by thepetitioner on 24-12-2007 as illegal, arbitrary, andunconstitutional and also direct the respondents not to evict thepetitioner from Ac.1.15 guntas of land in 248/AA, Ac.0.28 guntasof land in Sy.No.248/E, and Ac.0.27 gunts of land inSy.No.248/EE of Danthelabora village, Palvancha Mandal,Khammam District till finalization of the Revision Petitionpending before the Respondent No.1 or pass any otherappropriate order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem The petitioners claim to be the owners and possessors of theland admeasuring Ac.1.15 guntas covered by Sy.No.248/AA, Ac.0.28guntas covered by Sy.No.248/E and Ac.0.27 guntas of land covered bySy.No. 248/EE, situated in Danthelabora village of Palvancha Mandalin Khammam district, having purchased the said lands on 20-8-1968from its previous owner. The Special Deputy Collector (TW),Bhadrachalam, Khammam District, initiated proceedings against thepetitioners under the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation1/1959, as amended by Regulation 1/1970 and passed the order ofeviction dated 22-3-2005 and directed the second respondent-MandalRevenue Officer to take custody of the said land into Government. Asagainst the said order, the petitioners have preferred appeal inCMA.No.98 of 2005 before the Additional Agent to Government,Bhadrachalam, third respondent herein. However, the said appeal wasdismissed by the appellate authority by order dated 22-9-2007. Asagainst the said order of the appellate authority, the petitioners filedrevision petition before the first respondent, along with an applicationfor grant of interim order. It is the grievance of the petitioners that inspite of filing revision petition, the first respondent-revisional authorityhas not passed any orders either on the revision petition or stayapplication and on the other hand, the respondents are taking steps toenforce the order of eviction dated 22-3-2005. It is the case of thepetitioners that the primary authority has passed the order of evictionwithout examining the relevant issues which arise for considerationunder the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1/1959, asamended by Regulation 1/1970.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learnedGovernment Pleader appearing for the respondents.

In view of the fact that the revision petition filed by the petitionersbefore the first respondent is pending consideration, it is not desirableto consider the grounds raised in this Writ Petition and record anyfindings. As much as the petitioners are in uninterrupted continuouspossession of the lands from 1968 and the revision petition filed bythem before the first respondent is pending consideration, I dispose ofthe Writ Petition directing the first respondent to dispose of the revisionpetition filed by the petitioners on 24-12-2007 as expeditiously aspossible, by notifying the date of hearing to the petitioners and counselon record. Further, there shall be a direction to the respondents not toenforce the order of eviction dated 22-3-2005 as confirmed by theappeal authority in CMA.No.98/2005, by order dated 22-9-2007, and,continue the petitioners to be in possession of the subject lands till thedisposal of the revision petition by the first respondent.

Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of atthe admission stage. No order as to costs.

----------------------------------JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDYDATE: 28-12-2007CC in two days(BO) Msnr.