IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 410 of 2008 Between: Ponnada Suryanarayana S/o. Acchi Raju Near Union Bank, Thota Veedhi, Yeleswaram East Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisonal officer, Peddapuram East Godavari District 2 The Tahasildar, Yeleswaram, East Godavari District .....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 to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the proposed action of the respondents in trying to dispose the petitioner from the schedule land in Sy.No.222/2C of an extent of Ac.5.24 cents of Yeleswaram villge, without conducting enquiry pursuant to the impugned show cause notice in Ref.(B)61/2007 dated -04-07 and after submitting the petitioner explanation dated 11.8.2007 as illegal,null and void and direct the respondents to drop all the proceedings and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 410 of 2008 Order: The petitioner states that he purchased an extent of Ac.5.24 cents of land situated in Survey No.222/2C of Yeleswaram village, under a registered sale deed dated 30.05.1974, and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, it is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent, namely the Tahsildar Yeleswaram, issued notice in Form-2 under Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007, calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be evicted from the land in question on the ground that he was found to be the transferee of the assigned lands. The petitioner states that he submitted his explanation thereto, but without considering the same, the respondents are seeking to evict him from the land in question. On instructions, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that in spite of service of impugned show cause notice, neither the petitioner nor the original assignee of the land in question have submitted any explanation within the stipulated time, and therefore, the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 4(1)(b) of the Principal Act 9/77, as amended by Act 8/07, passed final orders, vide proceedings Ref.B/61/2007, dated 10.07.2007, and restored the land in question to the original assignee. He further submits that as against the said final orders passed by the 2nd respondent- Tahsildar, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to file an appeal before the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner agreed to avail the remedy of appeal available to him against the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar before the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. Since the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar has already passed final orders restoring the land in question to the original assignee, and admittedly, as against the final orders passed by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the appellate authority, namely the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, and having regard to the stand taken by both the counsel, I deem it appropriate to pass the following order: The writ petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal before the appellate authority, namely the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, against the final orders dated 10.07.2007, passed by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, restoring the land in question to the original assignee. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 27.03.2008 Ksr/Nsr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}