THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL No.263 of 2010 Dated:04.08.2010 Between: Gantasala Vishnu Murthy and others .. Appellants And The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL No.263 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The four appellants statedly purchased land in R.S.Nos.78/2, 62/4, 77 and 78/1 situated at Kalakurru Village, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District, under registered sale deed dated 11.06.1996. It appears that the third respondent herein initiated action under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (hereafter called as the Act) and issued orders on 10.09.2008 directing eviction of the vendors of the appellants on the ground that the vendors contravened the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. Pursuant to the said order, admittedly the appellants were dispossessed. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants approached this Court and sought a writ of mandamus for declaration that the action of the Tahsildar in trying to dispossess them from the petition schedule lands, is illegal and arbitrary. This Court on 20.10.2009 passed ex parte interlocutory order suspending the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 10.09.2008. The respondents 4 to 10 then moved the application for vacating the interim order mainly pleading that possession was already delivered to them pursuant to the order of the Tahsildar under Section 4 of the Act. In view of the same, the learned Judge by impugned order dated 18.02.2010 vacated the ex parte order of suspension and directed status quo obtaining as on that date. In this appeal, the counsel for the appellants submits that the possession was taken under panchanama without actually dispossessing the appellants and, therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from error. We, however, are not able to countenance his submission. In paragraph No.5 of the affidavit accompanying the Writ Petition, the petitioners/appellants admit that respondents took possession without following due process of law. For the interlocutory exercise of jurisdiction prima facie the said admission would suffice and it is for the petitioners to demonstrate in the Writ Petition regarding the actual position. We do not find any reason to interfere with the interlocutory order. We direct the Registry to list the Writ Petition for final hearing in December, 2010. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ V.V.S. RAO, J ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 04.08.2010 KH