IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI ANIL R. DAVE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 341 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 11/02/2008 in WP NO : 2182 of 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Kolluri Purnachandra Rao S/o.Prasadam Caste: Schedule Caste. R/o.Penamaluru Village & Mandal, Krishna District. 2 Sandipamula Raj Kamala W/o.Vijay Kumar Caste: Schedule Caste. R/o.Penamaluru Village & Mandal, Krishna District. 3 Shaik Srinivas Rao S/o.Shaik Nabi Caste: Backward Class R/o.Penamaluru Village & Mandal, Krishna District. 4 Shaik Hussain Bee W/o.Shaik Maab Caste: Backward Class R/o.Penamaluru Village & Mandal, Krishna District. .....APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The District Collector, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 Tahsildar, Penamaluru, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: MR. CH.JANARDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : JUDGMENT Per Anil R. Dave, CJ This appeal by the original petitioners is directed against the Judgment of the learned single Judge delivered in W.P.No.2182 of 2008 dated 11.2.2008. The appellants-original petitioners were aggrieved by issuance of a show cause notice bearing Rc.A.677/2006 dated 8.5.2007 by respondent No.3 under the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) as, according to the Government authorities, the appellants had purchased the lands in question in contravention of the provisions of the Act. After hearing the learned Advocates and upon going through the relevant material, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition for the reason that the petition had been filed against a show cause notice and as the appellants did not file reply to the show cause notice, further action had been taken by the Government authorities and thus possession of the land in question had also been taken over by the Government authorities by passing final order under Section 4(1) of the Act. In view of the fact that the order whereby possession of the land in question was taken over by the Government authorities is an appellable order, the learned Single Judge did not pass any order in favour of the appellants. Thus, it is clear that the petition was filed against a show cause notice and during the pendency of the writ petition, final order had already been passed and, therefore, the learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition. We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the just order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Needless to say that it would be open to the appellants to challenge the validity of the final order, which has been passed by the concerned authority during the pendency of the writ petition in accordance with law. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 2nd April, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J vtv