THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION Nos.969 AND 970 OF 2008 DATED: 24-01-2008 BETWEEN Thakur Ravindra Singh Chouhan @ S. Ravindranath Singh, S/o. Late Sivaram Singh, R/o. MIG 102/6, APHB Colony, Vijayawada, Krishna District. …PETITIONER AND Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others. …RESPONDENTS COMMON ORDER: Petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same viz., Thakur Ravindranath Singh Chouhan. He questions the order of the Tahsildar, Nandivada Mandal, Krishna District dated 13.10.2007 in RC.B.95/2007. 2. The said order has been passed holding that the land of an extent of Ac.2.78 cents in Sy.No.65/1 and 65/2 of Polukonda Village was originally assigned in favour of Javvadi China Tavitaiah and an extent of Ac.2.22 cents in Sy.No.61/3 of the same village was originally assigned to Daveedu and the original assignees have transferred the same in favour of Smt. S. Aranjyothi and Smt. A. Bhulakshmi respectively in contravention of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). Accordingly notices dated 25.06.2007 had been served on them and as no explanation was submitted the aforesaid final orders have been passed resuming the land for contravention of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 3 of the Act in exercise of powers under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. 3. Mr. K.S. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that as per the impugned orders, the notices were served on Aranjyothi and Bhulakshmi and in fact, they are not possession but the petitioner is in possession of the said land. No notice was given to the petitioner; therefore, the impugned orders are illegal, against the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Act. 4. I am not inclined to express any opinion as to who is the transferee, whether Smt. S. Aranjyothi and Smt. A. Bhulakshmi or the petitioner herein. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order he can as well file an appeal under Section 4-A(1) of the Act. Under Section 4-A(1) of the Act any person, aggrieved by an order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, is entitled to file an appeal within ninety days from the date of receipt of the said order; as such petitioner can as well file an appeal. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no right to file an appeal cannot be countenanced. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the resumption order before the appellate authority. However, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and so as to enable the petitioner to file an appeal, status quo obtaining as on today with regard to possession shall be maintained for a period of one week from today. No costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J January 24, 2008 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 25.01.2008. (B/o) DSK