THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.12625 OF 2010 DATED:08.06.2010 Between: Nandam Subrahmanyam and others .. Petitioners And The Tahsildar, Machilipatnam Mandal, Krishna District and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.12625 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners assail three separate proceedings of even dates dated 02.03.2010 of the first respondent under Section 4(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (the Act). The case of the petitioners is as follows. The first petitioner has allegedly purchased the land admeasuring Ac.1.37 cents in Survey No.190/4 and Ac.1.47 cents in Survey No.190/1. The second petitioner has purchased the land to an extent of Ac.1.02 cents in Survey No.190/3 and Ac.1.50 cents in Survey No.190/2. The third petitioner allegedly purchased the land to an extent of Ac.0.89 cents in Survey No.193/4 and Ac.1.47 cents in Survey No.193/5. The land is situated in Rudravaram Village, Bandar Mandal, Krishna District. They converted these lands into Prawn tanks and have been in possession since more than 15 years. The first respondent has initiated action under the Act and issued notice in Form-II under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007, which were statedly served on the petitioners in 2010. The petitioners made representations feigning ignorance about any contravention of Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Act. They contend that they were illiterate persons. They also contend that they themselves are landless poor persons. However, the third respondent passed orders observing that the explanations were received after the lapse of stipulated time. This Court heard counsel for the petitioners and the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment). It is well settled that ordinarily a Writ Petition is not entertained when there is an effective and efficacious alternative remedy. When disputed questions of fact with regard to service of notice or the jurisdictional facts are involved, it is always better to approach appropriate appellate authority first to consider the issues. Section 4(a) of the Act provides for an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer within a period of 90 days. The impugned orders were passed on 02.03.2010, which were served in April on the petitioners as alleged by them. Therefore, the period of limitation for filing the appeal has not expired. Two weeks time is granted to the petitioners to approach the second respondent, who is directed to accept their appeal and pass reasoned orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving notice to the petitioners. The petitioners contend that they have raised prawns in prawn tank. For a period of three weeks, there shall be status quo as on today and it shall be open to the petitioners to move appropriate application for interim orders before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 08.06.2010 Note:- Dispatch C.C. by 11.06.2010 (B/o) KH