IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 268 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 02/02/2009 in WP No : 22623 of 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M.N. Srinivas Naik, S/o. Nagamuni Naik, R/o Plot No. 62, Upadyaya Nagar, Venkatagiri Town and Mandal, Nellore District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3 The Tahsildar, Srikalahasti Village and Mandal, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.K.MURALIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : J U D G M E N T (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy): This writ appeal is filed against order dated 02-02-2009 in W.P.No.22623 of 2008, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and permitted the appellant to file an appeal against order dated 14-10-2007, impugned in the writ petition. Heard Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, and perused the record. The appellant was granted patta for an extent of Acs.1.50 cents in Survey No.373/1 of Inagaluru Village, Sri Kalahasti Mandal, Chittoor District. The said patta was cancelled by order dated 14-10-2007 by respondent No.3. The appellant filed W.P.No.22623 of 2008, questioning the said order, mainly on the ground that no notice was issued to him before the said order of cancellation was passed. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it was pleaded that show cause notice dated 05-10-2007 was issued to the appellant through Village Administrative Officer; that as the appellant was not residing in the village proper, the same was served by affixing at the site and that the appellant failed to submit his explanation. It was further stated that as it was found that the appellant failed to bring the property under cultivation, within the period of three years from the grant of assignment, which constitutes violation of one of the patta conditions, the assignment was cancelled. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, by holding that the question as to whether the notice was served on the appellant or not can be conveniently gone into in the appeal and therefore, the appellant was relegated to the remedy of appeal. We are not convinced with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that as the cancellation of assignment was not made under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, the appellant cannot file an appeal. Even though an averment was made in the counter-affidavit that the appellant has got the remedy of appeal under the provisions of the Act, in our view, the said averment does not reflect the true position with reference to the record. The order of cancellation of assignment does not make a reference to the provisions of the Act. The cancellation was obviously made for violation of conditions of patta, which reason is clearly reflected in the order. Even if an order of cancellation of assignment was not passed under the provisions of the Act, still the appellant is entitled to invoke the remedy of appeal under the provisions of the Board Standing Orders. In this view of the matter, we do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition with liberty to the appellant to file an appeal. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ appeal is dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as the time granted by the learned Single Judge for filing appeal has expired, the time may be extended for filing the appeal. Accordingly, the appellant is permitted to file the appeal within three (3) weeks from today. For a period of four (4) weeks, the status quo, obtaining as on today, shall be continued. As a sequel to dismissal of main appeal, WAMP No.561 of 2009 filed by the appellant for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. T. MEENA KUMARI, J Dated 6th March, 2009 C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J vrn