THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.32383 of 2011 ORDER: The action of the Tahsildar, Mandavalli Mandal, Krishna District (first respondent), in issuing the notices dated 15.11.2011, in Form-II under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007, is questioned in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners, three in number, claim to have purchased lands admeasuring Ac.2.16 cents, Ac.1.84 cents and Ac.3.37 cents respectively in different survey numbers in Unikili Village, Mandavalli Mandal, Gudivada Revenue Division, Krishna District. Hitherto in the year 2007 the first respondent passed orders of resumption on 26.11.2007 on the ground that the subject lands were government lands. The petitioners claim to have preferred appeals before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada, Krishna District (second respondent) since they were sought to be dispossessed from the subject lands. During the pendency of the appeals, the petitioners filed W.P.Nos.653, 654 and 661 of 2008. All the three Writ Petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 21.01.2008 directing the second respondent to consider and dispose of the appeals and, pending disposal of the appeals, status quo was directed to be maintained. The petitioners would assert that, though the appeals are still pending as on date, the first respondent has again issued the impugned notices dated 15.11.2011 in Form-II which were served on them on 02.12.2011. When the matter was listed on 09.12.2011, Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) sought time to obtain instructions. Today the Learned Government Pleader would submit that the appeals preferred by the petitioners against the orders of resumption are still pending before the second respondent, and are listed for hearing on 26.12.2011; the appeals would be disposed of at the earliest, in any event, within one month from today; and the impugned notices were issued by mistake, and in ignorance of the pendency of the appeals and the earlier order of this Court in W.P.No.653 of 2008 and batch dated 21.01.2008. Since the respondents have now admitted that the impugned notices were issued to the petitioners by mistake, they are liable to be, and are accordingly, set aside. There is no justification on the part of the second respondent in keeping the appeals pending for nearly three years. Recording the submission of the Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) that the appeals would be disposed of within one month from today, the impugned notices are set aside. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:20.11.2011 usd