IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11205 of 2008 Between: M. Ravinder S/o. Late Sri Satyanarayana R/o.H.No.21-7-754, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildar, Shamshadbad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendra nagar Revenue Division at Attapur, Ranga Reddy 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 a writ, order or direction one particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in attaching the property of the petitioner on 21.05.2008 admeasuring Ac.1.00 of land situated in Survey No.220/13 (H.NO.4-100) at Pedda Shapur Village, Shamshabad Mandal of Rangareddy District and also the action of the respondent No.2 in not passing any order in the appeal as illegal, arbitarry, unconstitutional direction to the respondent no.2 in not passing ay orders in the appeal as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice; while issuing a consequential direction to the respondents in general and to the respondent No.1 in particular to raise the attachment made on 21.05.2008 in respect of Ac.1.00 of land situated in Survey No.220/13 (H.NO.4-100) at Pedda Shapur Village, Shamshabad Mandal of Rangareddy District in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.GOVERDHANACHARY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11205 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was issued a notice dated 14.02.2008 by the first respondent directing him to explain as to why the land of Ac.3.00 cents in Sy.No.220/P of Pedda Shapur village, Shamshabad madnal of Ranga Reddy District shall not be resumed to the government under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. It was alleged that the land was assigned to one Mr. Tallapalli Buchaiah, a landless poor and that the same was found in possession of the petitioner. The petitioner in turn submitted his explanation stating that though the land was assigned in favour of Tallapalli Buchaiah initially, the same was cancelled and subsequently the land was assigned in favour of one Mr. Mandapa Shyamsunder. He is said to have purchased the land in the year 2006. The petitioner complains that without serving any orders passed by the first respondent, the shed constructed in the open land was sealed. He preferred an appeal before the second respondent under Section 4-A of the Act, together with a prayer for stay. He states that during the pendency of the appeal, a copy of the order dated 19.04.2008 was served and the second respondent has not granted any orders of stay. He seeks necessary directions in this regard. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Assignment. The petitioner had availed the remedy of appeal provided under Section 4-A of the Act. The grievance of the petitioner is two fold; the first is that he has not been served with any order passed by the first respondent and that in the order that is subsequently served upon him none of the points urged by him were dealt with. In as much as the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending, it is not necessary to deal with the merits of the matter. The appellate authority has to examine the matter on merits by verifying the necessary records. However, for all practical purposes, the appeal is treated as a continuation of the original proceedings. If the petitioner is dispossessed even while the appeal is pending, not only serious hardship would be caused to him, but even the appeal is prone to be rendered nugatory. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that during the pendency of the appeal before the second respondent, the petitioner shall be entitled to remain in possession of the property, but he shall not cause any alterations or create any third party interest as regards the same. The first respondent shall cause removal of seals forthwith. No order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Date:28.05.2008 Note: C.C. in two days. B/O Ccm/nsr