IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 25134 of 2007 Between: Guruju Venkateswara Rao S/o Subbarao r/o Tadepalligudem, West Godavari district. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsilder (MRO) Nidadavole, Nidadavole Mandal, West Godavari District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvur, West godavari district. 3 The District Collector, West Godavari, at Eluru. .....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 an appropriate, Writ, order or direction more particularly one in thenature of writ of mandmaus declarignthe action ofthe respondents, particularly the 1st respondent in attmpting to forcibly dispossess the petitioner's from the lands in an extent of Ac. 0-39 cents in R.S. No. 370/2D and ac. -03 cents of land in R.S. No. 370/2A situated at Tadimalla Village, Nidadavole Mandal, West Godavari District, without conducting any enquiry and without passing any order on the explanation given to the notice issued under Rule -3 of A.P. Asigned Landa (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules 2007, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust unwarranted,, malafide and against the principles ofnatural justice and against constitutional guarantees, and to consequently direct the respondents notto dispossess the petitioner from the above mentioned lands duringthe pendency of enquiry with the 1st respondnet under Rule- 3 of AP Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules 2007, and to pass such other further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.JYOTHI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.25134 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner states that the first respondent, namely, the Tahsildar (Mandal Revenue Officer), Nidadavole Mandal, West Godavari District, is attempting to forcibly dispossess the petitioner from the lands in an extent of Ac.0.39 cents in R.S.No.370/2D and Ac.1.03 cents in R.S.No.370/2A situated at Tadimalla Village, Nidadavole Mandal, West Godavari District, without following the due process of law. The case of the petitioner is that the first respondent issued a notice dated 07.04.2007 to the petitioner in Form-II under Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007, to which the petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 07.11.2007, and that without conducting any enquiry and without passing any orders thereon, the first respondent is trying to dispossess him from the land in question. Hence he filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. Initially when the writ petition came up for admission on 27.11.2007, this Court while adjourning the matter has directed the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue to get instructions. Thereafter the matter is listed today for admission. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue filed a counter affidavit. It is submitted that Form-II notice was issued to the petitioner on 07.04.2007 for which no explanation was offered by him and, therefore, the resumption order was passed by the first respondent-Tahsildar on 22.10.2007 whereby the land was taken back to the custody of the Government by conducting panchanama. It is further submitted that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said resumption order passed by the first respondent-Tahsildar, the petitioner has to avail alternative remedy of appeal as ordained under Section 4-A of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 before the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, and without availing such remedy, the petitioner has straight away approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. Since the petitioner has got an alternative remedy of appeal before the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer against the orders passed on 22.10.2007 by the first respondent, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission with the following directions: The petitioner is directed to approach the second respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvur, West Godavari District, and file appeal against the orders passed on 22.10.2007 by the first respondent- Tahsildar and on filing such appeal the second respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________ N.V.RAMANA, J. Date: 16.06.2008. VGSR