HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.4629 of 2011 WRIT PETITION No.4659 of 2011 WRIT PETITION No.4759 of 2011 WRIT PETITION No.4924 of 2011 WRIT PETITION No.4934 of 2011 and WRIT PETITION No.4948 of 2011 Date: March 07, 2011 WRIT PETITION No.4629 of 2011 Between: 1. Gudapati Sundara Rao & 2 others. … Petitioners and 1. The District Collector, Guntur District, Guntur & 2 others. … Respondents * * * WRIT PETITION No.4659 of 2011 Between: Somula Subba Reddy … Petitioner And 1. The District Collector, Guntur District, Guntur & 2 others. … Respondents * * * WRIT PETITION No.4759 of 2011 Between: Uriti Chenchu Punnaiah … Petitioner And 1. The District Collector, Guntur District, Guntur & 2 others. … Respondents * * * WRIT PETITION No.4924 of 2011 Between: Avula Tirupathi Reddy … Petitioner And 1. The District Collector, Guntur District, Guntur & 2 others. … Respondents * * * WRIT PETITION No.4934 of 2011 Between: 1. Somula Venkata Ramana Reddy & 3 others … Petitioners and 1. The District Collector, Guntur District, Guntur & 2 others. … Respondents * * * WRIT PETITION No.4948 of 2011 Between: Sandireddy China Musala Reddy … Petitioner and 1. The District Collector, Guntur District, Guntur & 2 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.4629 of 2011 WRIT PETITION No.4659 of 2011 WRIT PETITION No.4759 of 2011 WRIT PETITION No.4924 of 2011 WRIT PETITION No.4934 of 2011 and WRIT PETITION No.4948 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: The grievance of the petitioners in these cases is that during pendency of their appeals filed under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for brevity ‘the Act of 1977’), the respondent authorities were seeking to interfere with their possession and enjoyment over the subject lands. 2. Admittedly, against the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Bapatla, Guntur District, directing resumption of the lands in the possession of the petitioners on the ground that they were assigned lands, alienated in violation of the provisions of the Act 1977, the petitioners preferred appeals before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali, Guntur District, the Appellate Authority under the Act of 1977. It is their case that the subject appeals are still pending consideration and in the meanwhile, the authorities are disturbing their possession and enjoyment of the subject lands. 2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, upon instructions, stated that the appeals filed by the petitioners had been disposed of by the Appellate Authority and the orders passed in the appeals were communicated to the petitioners through general post. The same is vehemently denied by Sri P. Phalguna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. As there is no proof of service of the orders passed by the Appellate Authority, which would be essential for the purpose of reckoning the limitation to file a revision under Section 4-B of the Act of 1977, the practice adopted by the authorities in communicating such orders by way of general post cannot be countenanced. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali, Guntur District, second respondent, is accordingly directed to communicate the orders passed by him in the appeals filed by the petitioners through registered post with acknowledgement due. Till expiry of the period of limitation from the date of receipt of such communication, the respondents shall not take any further action pursuant to the orders passed in the appeals. 4. There is also a dispute with regard to the status as to the possession of the subject lands. The petitioners claim that they were not dispossessed by the authorities, while the learned Assistant Government Pleader states that pursuant to the resumption orders, the possession was taken over, as there was no stay by the Appellate Authority in any of the appeals. This aspect, being in the realm of a disputed question of fact, cannot be resolved by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It will necessarily have to be addressed by the Revisional Authority in the event the petitioners file revisions under Section 4-B of the Act of 1977 against the orders of the Appellate Authority. 5. The writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: March 07, 2011. Note: Issue order copy by wire at party’s costs. //B.O.// BSB