THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.36822 OF 2024

ORDER:

The petitioner filed this Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 in not granting stay in M.A. No. of 2024 (un-numbered) in Revision Petition No. of 2024 (un-numbered), filed on 19.11.2024, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner further seeks a direction to stay all further proceedings, including eviction from agricultural land measuring Ac.1.05 guntas in Sy.No.286 of Irsulapuram Village, BayyaramMandal, Mahabubabad District, pending disposal of the said revision.

2. Heard Sri T. Vasantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent No.4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the schedule property, having inherited it from his father, and that his name is duly mutated in the revenue records. He submits that eviction orders were passed in LTR Case No. 8/2015/Bym dated 27.02.2016 without making him a party to those proceedings. The appellate authority also confirmed the said orders in CMA No.33/2021 dated 09.09.2024. He relies on interim protection granted in O.S.No.266 of 2022 and on this Court’s earlier order in CRP No.1414 of 2023 confirming his possession.

4. Learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submit that the land in question belongs to a Scheduled Tribe and that the proceedings before the competent Land Transfer Authority were validly initiated. They contend that the petitioner has no valid title and that the authorities acted within their jurisdiction in ordering eviction.

5. Having regard to the submissions and on perusal of the record, it is seen that the petitioner has already filed a statutory revision before respondent No.1 on 19.11.2024. The grievance of the petitioner is only that the stay application filed along with the said revision has not been considered. Considering the limited scope of the Writ Petition and the fact that the revision is a statutory remedy, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to direct respondent No.1 to dispose of the revision expeditiously.

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to take up and dispose of the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner on 19.11.2024 along with any pending interlocutory applications, as per law, as expeditiously as possible. It is further directed that till such time the revision is disposed of, the interim order granted by this Court on 31.12.2024 shall stand extended. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA Date: 10.11.2025

myk