THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.1395 of 2008 Between: Kundum Rajyalaxmi. .. PETITIONER and Government of A.P., and others. .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.1395 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner questions the resumption orders passed by the 3rd respondent in proceedings Rc.Nos.98/07/A and 99/07/A dated 30-08-2007, in resuming various lands in various sub-divisions of Sy.No.118 situated at Tamaram Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, on the ground that the said lands were originally assigned in favour o f R.Nooka Raju, R.Narayana Murthy, R.Thammayya, R.Atchiyamma, R.Sanyasulu and R.Thammayya, and the petitioner purchased the said lands from the original assignees. It is further stated that a perusal of the impugned orders go to show that the show cause notices were served to the petitioner on 08-04-2007 and 09- 04-2007. In fact, in one impugned order, it is stated that explanation filed by the petitioner is not satisfactory and in another impugned order, it is not stated as to whether the petitioner filed any explanation or the explanation filed by the petitioner is not satisfactory. As a matter of fact, no notices have been served to the petitioner as alleged in the impugned orders. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the total lands purchased by the petitioner are only an extent of Ac.4-01 cents in Sy.Nos.118-1 to 118-3, but whereas in the impugned proceedings it is stated about other sub-divisions of Sy.No.118. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the notices have not been issued to the petitioner and the resumption orders go to show that the lands in question are assigned lands, but according to the petitioner, the said lands are not assigned lands. As the impugned orders do not indicate the particulars of D.K.T patta/darkast register, the disputed question of fact cannot be decided in the writ petition. However, there is an effective alternative remedy of appeal under Section 4-A (1) of A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “the Act”). Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file appeals under Section 4-A (1) of the Act before the 2nd respondent against the resumption orders of the 3rd respondent made in Rc.Nos.98/07/A and 99/07/A, dated 30-08-2007, within ten days from today. If any such appeals are filed within ten days from today, status-quo obtaining as on today with regard to the possession shall be maintained, pending disposal of the appeals. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 29-01-2008 Note: Issue C.C. in three days (B/o) Prv