THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.2827 of 2008 26.08.2010 Between: Ponthalapati Venkateswarlu And others. ...Petitioners And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.2827 of 2008 ORDER: Ponthalapati Subbarayudu, father of first petitioner, Yeggoni Venkataiah, father of second petitioner, and Bala Subbanna, husband of third petitioner were assigned land admeasuring Acs.1.00 each in different sub division numbers in survey No.140, by way of D Form patta. They statedly belong to Scheduled Caste (SC) community and are in possession of the land. Third respondent tried to interfere with their possession, in vain. Therefore, he approached second respondent who initiated action under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (the Act). Notices were issued under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007. Pending further action, the Tahsildar issued prohibitory orders vide proceedings Rc.No.25 of 2007, dated 17.10.2007 prohibiting petitioners and third respondent from entering the lands. Petitioners contend that their predecessors and petitioners are in possession of the land, and therefore, they cannot be prevented even before necessary orders are passed under the Act. The question raised in this writ petition is considered in Sannala Brahma Rao @ Brahmaji v Government of Andhra Pradesh[1], wherein, after referring to Taylor v Taylor[2], Nazir Ahmed v Emperor[3] and Babu Verghese v Bar Council of Kerala[4], it was held as under. The Act or the Rules do not contain any provision empowering the Tahsildar from passing an order such as the one impugned in the writ petition. Of course, if ultimately an order is passed under Section 4 of the Act for resumption of assigned land for contravention of the provisions under Section 3 of the Act subject to the right of appeal under Section 4-A and revision under Section 4-B of the Act, the land can always be resumed in which event all the constructions made on the land resumed shall vest in the Government and the person in possession cannot have any right to claim such property. Admittedly an order under Section 4 of the Act is yet to be passed by the second respondent and, therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable. This Court makes it clear that the observations made herein above are intended for the purpose of this order and they do not in any manner bind second respondent while deciding the case depending on the record and the evidence produced by the parties. In view of the same, this writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to maintain status quo. Second respondent is also directed to conduct enquiry under the provisions of the Act and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 26.08.2010 Pln [1] 2010 (4) ALT 114 [2] 1875 (1) Ch.D. 426 [3] AIR 1936 PC 253 [4] (1999) 3 SCC 422