THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.22552 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner has invoked this Court’s jurisdiction aggrieved by the action of the 1st respondent in seeking to dispossess him from the land in question without following the procedure established by law. The petitioner claims to have purchased dry land of an extent of ac.2-36 cents in Sy.No.551/46 of Mahabubabad Revenue Village and Mandal, Warangal District in 1976 in the bonafide belief that his vendors were pattadars. He claims to have developed the land digging an open well and installing an electric pump set thereat, and to have subsequently planted guava fruit bearing plants. It is the petitioner’s case that he has been in continuous possession of the lands ever since 1976. When action was sought to be initiated against him by the Tahsildar under Section 3 of the Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent who passed the order dated 17.7.2007 upholding the orders of the 1st respondent dated 25.4.2005 that the lands in question were assigned lands. The Revenue Divisional Officer remanded the matter back to the 1st respondent asking him to examine whether the petitioner was a landless poor person who had developed the assigned land and was dependent thereupon for his livelihood. Though the said order was passed on 17.7.2007, the matter remained in cold storage before the 1st respondent for nearly four years thereafter till the 2nd respondent, by his proceedings dated 3.8.2011, observed that, even after completion of four years, no action had been taken. The 2nd respondent directed the 1st respondent to submit a detailed report in this regard. From the records placed before this Court by the Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) it is evident that though the proceedings of the R.D.O is dated 3.8.2011, he affixed his signature on the said proceedings only on 4.8.2011. Curiously the 1st respondent passed the order dated 3.8.2011 directing resumption of land in question without even examining whether or not the petitioner was a landless poor person, even though the order of remand required the 1st respondent to examine this aspect. A copy of the said order of the 1st respondent dated 3.8.2011 has, admittedly, not been served on the petitioner till date. Sri K.Ram Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, would contend that the said order of the 1st respondent is ante-dated; it was evidently passed only on 4.8.2011 as he was hauled up by the 2nd respondent for his failure to act for four years; the 1st respondent’s order does not examine the very question which he was required to consider i.e., whether or not the petitioner was a landless poor person and, in such circumstances, the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 3.8.2011 must be held to be a nullity. Learned Counsel would further assert that the petitioner is a landless poor person and, in any event, under Section 4(1)(b)(i) of the Act the resumed land must be reassigned to the petitioner as he had purchased the land in good faith, and for valuable consideration, before 29.1.2007. While the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel cannot be said to be without merit, it must also be borne in mind that the petitioner has a remedy of preferring an appeal, against the order of the 1st respondent, under Section 4-A(1) of the Act and raise all contentions, which have been raised before this Court, before the appellate authority. As a copy of the order of the 1st respondent has now been made available to the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, by the Learned G.P. for Revenue (assignment), it is but appropriate that the petitioner is relegated to the remedy of an appeal and is permitted to raise all such contentions, which are urged in this writ petition, before the appellate authority In case the appeal is filed within the time prescribed under Section 4A(1) of the Act the appellate authority shall consider all the contention raised therein, and pass orders in accordance with law. With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ___________ 16-08-2011 Note: C.C. in one week B/o asp