IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 9971 of 2008 Between: Smt. Erraboina Jhansi W/o Jayaramulu R/o H. No. 10-3-334 Vidyanagar Karimnagar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District collector, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar. 3 The Tahsildar, Karimnagar. .....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 a writ, order or direction, and more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the tahsildar, karimnagar in No. B/401/2007-1 dt 31-8-2007 and the consequent Appellate Authority & Revenue Divisional officer, Karimnagar's appeal order in Appeal No.1/5498/2007 dated 5-1-2008 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, null and void; and consequently direct the respondents not to resume petitioner’s land admeasuring Ac. 2.20 gts., in Sy. No. 136 of Rekurthi Village, Karimnagar Mandal & District by allowing the petitioner to enjoy the said land based on the sale deed in her favour; and pass such other or further orders deemed just and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.SIDDAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 9971 of 2008 22-04-2009 Oral Order: The 3rd respondent by the proceedings dated 31-08- 2007 recorded that the petitioner purchased land in an extent of Ac.2-20 guntas in survey No. 136 of Rekurthi village, Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District, which was assigned to one Asthapuram Kistaiah son of Pochaiah, resident of Rekurthi village, in contravention of Section 3 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act 9 of 1977) (for short ‘the Act’) and directed resumption of the property to the Government. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent which authority rejected the appeal by the order dated 05-01-2008. The writ petition is directed against the appellate order. Section 4-B of the Act provides a revisional remedy to the District Collector against the appellate order of the 2nd respondent dated 05-01-2008. In the light of the statutory remedy available under Section 4-B of the Act, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the revisional remedy, if so advised. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 22-04-2009 Pvks