THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.31029 OF 2011 ORDER: The order under challenge in this Writ Petition is the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer dated 18.11.2011 rejecting the petitioner’s request to grant stay of all further proceedings consequent to the order of the Tahsildar dated 20.10.2011. The order of the Tahsildar dated 20.10.2011 is an order of resumption of the petitioner’s lands under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (A.P. Act 9 of 1977). The petitioner had approached this Court earlier by way of W.P.No.28676 of 2011 and, while noting the submission of the Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) that the lands had already been resumed on 20.10.2011, this Court relegated the petitioner to the remedy of an appeal. The petitioner thereafter availed the said remedy and, in as much as her application for grant of stay was rejected, she has again invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. Sri V. Roopesh Kumar Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the respondents had not followed any procedure in illegally resuming the lands; resumption of lands was in violation of the provisions of A.P. Act 9 of 1977 and the Rules made thereunder; action was taken for resumption of lands after a long lapse of three decades; sale transactions have regularly taken place ever since 1973; the names of those who purchased the lands from 1973 onwards were also recorded in the revenue records; and the respondents had acted belatedly in invoking the provisions of A.P. Act 9 of 1977. These are all matters required to be gone into by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer in the appeal preferred by the petitioner. All that has been done, in the order under challenge in this Writ Petition, is to reject the application for stay. While this Court was initially inclined to direct the respondents not to reassign the lands resumed by them, Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) would submit that possession of lands had already been handed over to original assignee on 15.11.2011. In such circumstances, the only order which can be passed is to direct the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer (second respondent) to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, and in any event not later that two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be a direction accordingly. The Writ Petition stands disposed of at the stage of admission. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J November 29, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.31029 OF 2011 November 29, 2011 MD