IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 7883 of 2008 Between: 1 Smt.Shirifa Begum W/o.Abdul Rahman R/o.H.No.1-10-94/4/D, S.S. Gutta, Mahaboobnagar District. 2 Smt.Hajeera Begum W/o.Md.Afsar R/o.H.No.1-4-130/2/B, Arabgalli, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Tahsildar, Mahaboobnagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. .....RESPONDENT 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 a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ by setting aside the impugned resumption order vide proceedings No.B/20419/2006 dated 11.3.2008, without conducting any enquiry under Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the A.P. Assignment of Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of provisions of Act, 1977 and against the principles of natural justice and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SHAFATH AHMED KHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 7883 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 11.3.2008 passed by the respondent resuming the land of the petitioners admeasuring Ac.1.00 each in survey No. 79/13, Palkonda village, Mahabubnagar district, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners claim that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the subject land, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds dated 6.7.2004 and that the respondent after conducting an enquiry has also issued Pattadar Passbook and title deeds in their favour. While so, they were issued with show cause notices alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 3 (2) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (POT) Act 1977, for which the petitioners have submitted their explanations. Now the grievance of the petitioners is that without considering their explanations and without conducting any enquiry, the respondent has passed impugned resumption order dated 11.3.2008. Hence, the present writ petition. Today when the matter is taken up, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that as against the impugned resumption orders, an alternative remedy of appeal lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer and without availing the same, the present writ petition is filed and the same is not maintainable. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. Both counsel agreed for disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage. Since an alternative remedy of appeal is provided against the impugned resumption order to the Revenue Divisional Officer, without going into the merits of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Meanwhile, there shall be stay of further proceedings pursuant to impugned orders dated 11.3.2008. On filing an appeal, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law, expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________ N.V.RAMANA,J DATE: 11.4.2008 TVK ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER 27 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 7883 of 2008 DATE: 11.4.2008