THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1755 of 2010 ORDER: The mother of the petitioners, by name Smt.Navaneethamma, is said to have purchased an extent of Acs.8.13 guntas of land in Survey Nos.43/1 and 43/2 of Mangadu Village, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District, through sale deed, dated 09.01.1974 and that she was issued pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of the land on 20.10.1996. Smt.Navaneethamma is said to have died in the year 2006. The petitioners state that a copy of the order, dated 18.05.2008, passed by the Tahsildar, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District, respondent No.3 herein, under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’) was served upon petitioner No.4 on 20.01.2010. According to the petitioners, no notice of hearing was issued to them nor they were permitted to submit explanation. On merits also, it is stated that the provisions of the Act do not apply to the land in question. Heard Sri V.Jagapathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. A perusal of the order discloses that on receiving instructions from the District Collector, Chittoor about the alleged alienation of the land in Nagari Mandal in contravention of the provisions of the Act, a show cause notice, dated 16.03.2007, was issued to the original assignees, namely Kamalamma and E.Ranemma, and the purchaser, Navaneethamma. It was further mentioned that since the assignees died, notices were served upon their legal representatives and on finding that Navaneethamma also died, notice, dated 16.03.2007, served upon her son, petitioner No.4. On the ground that no explanation was submitted to the show cause notice, the impugned order was passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of the Act do not apply and at any rate, the benefit under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act ought to have been extended to the petitioners. This plea could have been examined, if explanation was submitted by the petitioners, and the same was not taken into account. At any rate, the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 4-A of the Act. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal against the impugned order. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 02.02.2010. Note: Issue cc in three days. (B/o) kdl