APHC010580712014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 38901/2014 Between: Mutyala Rami Reddy, S/o.balaraju @ Balireddy, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MUSUDI BABJI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N SIVA REDDY 2. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP) WRIT PETITION NO: 14572 of 2014 Between: Burre Venkata Subba Rao, S/o.late Appa Rao and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Govt Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 2 1. N SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K VENKATESH 2. MUSUDI BABJI 3. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION Nos.38901 & 14572 of 2014 C O M M O N O R DE R: W.P.No.14572 of 2014 is filed seeking for a direction not to proceed further consequent to the LTRP No.126/2000 dated 03.04.2002 as confirmed in C.M.A.No.111/2008, dt.31.10.2013 pending disposal before the 2nd respondent. Writ Petition No.38901/2014 is filed to declare the endorsement of Respondent No.2 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for issuance of Pattadar Passbook and title deed in respect of the lands to an extent of Ac.13- 98 cents in Sy.Nos.10 and 13 of Thimmapuram Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District. 2. The land in question in both Writ Petitions is the one and the same and falls under the Agency Area governed by the Agency Regulations. 3. The parties as described in W.P.No.14572 of 2014 are taken up for the purpose of narration. 4. The Petitioners claim to be the absolute owner of the above mentioned land having purchased the same under Registered Sale Deed 22.02.1961 from Kotha Apparao Gupta for consideration of Rs.5,000/- and was in possession ever since. It is further stated that 4 the land was originally owned by one Muthyala Chinnayya, who was a non Tribal, and his share fell to his son M. Geddayya. The said Geddayya mortgage the property to Kotha Bapanna of Yeleswaram village, in the year 1917 and executed promissory note on 22.06.1917. Since the M. Geddayya and his sons failed to discharge the mortgage debt, the land in question was sold in a registered sale deed on 12.04.1929 to one Kotha Appalaswamy. The said Appalasamy after enjoying the property for more than three decades with absolute rights, execute a Sale Deed in favour of the father of the petitioners under registered sale deed dated 22.02.1961. 5. While so, a compliant was made by one Muthyala Veeraswamy Naidu with regard to the right and possession of the predecessors of the petitioners with regard the land in question. The said complaint was taken on record as a case in LTRP No.831/70. After a detailed enquiry, the claim of the said Veeraswamy Naidu was rejected and the sale in favour of the father of the petitioner was held to be in consonance with the Schedule Area Regulations. 6. While so, a fresh complaint was made by the Respondent No.5 i.e., Grandson of the Veeraswami Naidu, and the complaint was numbered as LTRP No.126/2000 and the said case was allowed vide orders dated 03.04.2002, and the same was confirmed by the Respondent No.2 in C.M.A.No.111/2008 dated 31.10.2013. The 5 Petitioners thereafter have filed the revision before the Respondent No.1, and the same is pending. 7. While so, as further steps were sought to be taken pursuant to the orders in LTRP No. 126 of 2000, the present Writ Petition is filed seeking stay of all further proceedings pending disposal of the Revision. 8. This Court passed an interim order on 15.05.2014 in WPMP No.18094 of 2014 in W.P.No.14572 of 2014 staying the eviction of the Petitioners from the lands in question pending disposal of the revision. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Revision is still pending and that the Petitioners are in possession of the Property. 10. Heard the learned respective counsel. 11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the revision filed by the petitioners would be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. 12. Taking note of the above and considering the interim order in vogue since 2014, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent No.1 to dispose of the Writ Petition as expeditiously as possible. 13. Accordingly, W.P.Nos.14572 & 38901 of 2014 are disposed of with following directions: 6 i) The Respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the Revision pending before it as expeditiously as possible. ii) Till disposal of the Revision, status quo as on today shall be maintained. iii) There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 03.03.2026 JAK/eha 7 198 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 38901 and 14572 /2014 Dt. 03.03.2026 JAK/eha