IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11484 of 2008 Between: A. Gowri Shankar, S/o. Ancharamaiah, R/o. H.No. 28-1480, Nunepalli, Nandyal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildar, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District. 3 The District Collector, Kurnool. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings RC B. 244/2007 dated 9/5/2008 of the 1st respondent as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unreasonable, unconstitutional, unjustified and unsustainable and set aside the same holding that the petitioner has right and title an extent of 98 cents in Survey No. 137/2A and 66 cents in survey No. 138/1 of Chapirevula Village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District . Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner feels aggrieved by an order dated 9.5.2008 through which the 1st respondent-Tahsildar had resumed an extent of Ac.98.00 cents of land in S.No.137/2A and Ac.0.66 cents in S.No.138/1 of Chapirevula village, Nandyal Mandal in exercise of the power under A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) of Act, 1977 (for brevity “the Act). He contends that the very initiation of the proceedings under the said Act is untenable, since the lands in question were not assigned to anyone at all. Reference is made to the earlier round of litigation, which culminated by filing W.P.No.2565 of 2008 and setting aside of an order similar to the impugned order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Admittedly, the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 4(A)(i) of the Act. Though the petitioner states that the proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent are without jurisdiction, this Court is not inclined to accept it at this stage. The question as to whether the lands, which are the subject matter of the impugned order, were assigned at all can be effectively examined by the appellate authority by calling for the records. The interest of the petitioner can be protected by directing that he shall not be dispossessed from the lands in question pending disposal of the appeal. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, within a period of three weeks from today. In case the appeal is presented within the stipulated time, the possession of the petitioner shall not be disturbed till the disposal of the same by the appellate authority. No costs. _______________ 29.05.2008 Note: Furnish copy in three days. B/o bcj