THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.26872 of 2010 DT.29.10.2010 Between: Gurrala Ramaiah … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, (Assignments) Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.T.C.Krishnan Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a certiorari to quash order, dated 12.10.2010, passed by respondent No.2, whereby he directed respondent No.4 to implement order, dated 15.11.2004, passed by respondent No.3. The petitioner claims to be in possession of Ac.0.44 cents of land in Survey No.420/2 of Bogala-Mungamur Village. Evidently, as the said land was an assigned land, proceedings under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated by respondent No.3 and an order was passed on 15.11.2004 directing restoration of land in favour of the original assignee/legal heir. As the said order was not implemented, respondent No.5 approached respondent No.2 for appropriate direction for implementation of the said order. By the impugned order, respondent No.2 has directed restoration of land to respondent No.5. At the hearing, Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly conceded that the order, dated 15.11.2004, by which, the land was directed to be restored to respondent No.5, has not been questioned by his client on the ground that he was not a party to the proceedings. In my opinion, as long as the said order remains in force, the direction given by respondent No.2 to restore possession of the land to respondent No.5 cannot be found fault with. Merely because the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings, which culminated in passing of the order, dated 15.11.2004, the said order would not become void ab initio, though its legality can be questioned by the aggrieved party before the appropriate forum. Until the said order is either set aside or suspended, the request of respondent No.5 for restoration of land cannot be resisted. In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by respondent No.2. However, the petitioner shall be free to question the order, dated 15.11.2004, by way of an appeal as provided under the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. If such an appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall consider the same on merits, uninfluenced by any of the findings contained in this order. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner raised an apprehension that the possession of the land in question may be restored to respondent No.5 in pursuance of the impugned order, in order to protect the petitioner’s interest till such time as he approaches the appellate authority, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in question for a period of one month. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.34345 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 29.10.2010 Note: Issue CC in three days. (b/o) VGB