THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 12th August 2009 WRIT APPEAL NO.1547 of 2002 Between: Paruchuri Leelakumari, W.o.Chandrasekhar Rao, 57 years, R/o.7-2-70, Dwarakanagar, Khammam, Khammam District. …APPELLANT AND 1. The District Collector, Khammam District, Khammam. And two others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1547 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) The appellant-unsuccessful writ petitioner files this appeal seeking to assail the order dated 03.09.2002 in W.P.No.8722 of 2001, rejecting the Writ Petition filed for a Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in giving instructions to the other respondents herein in respect of land to an extent of Acs.1.36 gts situated in Survey No.123 of Khanapuram (Haveli) Village of Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District, for the purpose of handing over the same to the District Tourism Officer-the third respondent herein. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the said land having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 22.07.1981 for a valuable consideration from his vendor namely Sajjanapu Kotamma, W/o.Nagaiah and since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land. However, as per the directions given to the Tourism authorities, without proper acquisition and without paying necessary compensation, as contemplated under law, the said land was taken over, which is wholly illegal . Hence, the Writ Petition. Initially, at the time of admission, the learned Single Judge directed the parties to maintain status quo. Subsequently, on filing of the counter affidavit along with the vacate stay petition, the Writ petition itself was taken up for disposal. In the counter affidavit, the case of the respondents was to the effect that the land in question is an assigned land and the petitioner is in illegal possession of the same. However, having regard to the illegal sale and also non-cultivation of the said land within the period prescribed, proceedings were initiated for assumption by issuing a notice in Form I on 09.03.2001. Since the petitioner refused to take the notice, the notice was affixed on 10.03.2001 on his residential door and on Survey No.123. In spite of affixture of the notice, he failed to submit explanation and ultimately, the second respondent passed order for resumption of the land vide proceedings No.B/6772/2000 dated 27.03.2001. Accordingly, possession was also taken over under cover of panchanama on 28.03.2001. It is also pointed out that the said land being tank bed, the same sought to be given to Tourism Department for the purpose of developing. However, learned Single Judge did not find favour with the petitioner’s request and dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, the appeal. Having considered the submissions made and on perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that during the pendency of the appeal, it has been pointed out that even the proceedings, which have been initiated by the respondents for resumption and the ultimate orders passed on 27.03.2001, were not served on the petitioner nor his vendor namely Sajjanapu Kotamma, W/o.Nagaiah. Therefore, the question of taking any further steps is not tenable in the absence of the same. No doubt, the learned Single Judge has observed that the appellant can as well obtain certified copy but the fact remains that as and when an order is passed affecting a person’s substantive right, he is entitled to a copy of the same rather than question or deny the same, which is wholly misconceived. In view of the same, as and when such order is served, necessarily, the alternative efficacious remedy available is to file regular appeal and canvass all the points to which the appellant is entitled and can raise all the objections. Hence, without going into the merits or any objections raised by the respondents herein, we deem it more appropriate to direct the second respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Khammam, Khammam District, to serve a copy of the resumption order vide No.B/6772/2000 dated 27.03.2001 to the appellant. On receipt thereof, the appellant shall file an appeal within a period of thirty {30} days from the date of receipt of that order. The appellant is at liberty to raise all the objections as to the correctness of the resumption order and also in respect of the rights claimed by him, which shall be gone into in accordance with law, after giving notice and opportunity to him. It is also made clear that if no appeal is preferred in spite of service of the said order, the interim order granted by this Court on 01.10.2002 stands vacated. It is also made clear that the authorities shall dispose of the appeal to be preferred by the appellant uninfluenced by any of the observations or findings in these proceedings. Subject to the above, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) _________________ (SANJAY KUMAR, J) 12th August 2009 RRB