IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24626 of 2001 Between: 1 Pulaparthi Chandra Rao S/o Pulaparthi Veeraju R/o Thiumalayapalem Village, Gokavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 Pulaparthi Venkata Rao S/o Pulaparthi Veeraju R/o Thiumalayapalem Village, Gokavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 3 Pulaparthi Bhadra Rao @ Veerabhadra Rao S/o Pulaparthi Veeraju R/o Thiumalayapalem Village, Gokavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 4 Pulaparthi Nageswara Rao S/o Pulaparthi Veeraju R/o Thiumalayapalem Village, Gokavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Gokavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 The District Collector East Godavari District. 3 Pandiri Nageshwara Rao Dora, S/o Veer Swamy R/o Gangampalem Village, Gokavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings of the 1st Respondent in Ref (B) 180/01, dated 22-11-2001 has highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and with out jurisdiction and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.BADANA.BHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2.: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR. D.SUDARSHAN REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This is the third journey of the petitioners to this Court. They filed W.P.No.8744 of 2001 with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents therein in trying to evict them from the land bearing S.No.142/3 admeasuring Ac.3.03 cents of Thirumalayapalem village, Hamlet of Gangapalem, Gokavaram Mandfal, without following the procedure contemplated under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 1977 as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and for a consequential direction to the respondents therein to take further action after affording an opportunity to the petitioners. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 27.04.2001. Relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder: “Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the notice under Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 1977 is received by the petitioners on 8-4-2001. The petitioners made an attempt to submit their explanation to the Mandal Revenue Officer but the same has not been received. The fact remains that no final order as such has been passed so far by the Mandal Revenue Officer. All that the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Mandal Revenue Officer may be directed to receive the explanation to be submitted by the petitioners and take the same into consideration before passing orders under the provisions of Act 9 of 1977. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it appropriate to direct the Mandal Revenue Officer to receive the application to be submitted by the petitioners within one week from today and take the same under consideration and pass by the Mandal Revenue Officer without asking and considering the explanation to be submitted by the petitioners.” Thereafter, the petitioners filed WP No.19711 of 2001 assailing the action of the respondents in resorting to evict them from the land bearing Survey No.142/3 admeasuring Ac.3.03 cents situated in Thirumalayapalem village, Gokavaram Mandal, E.G. District. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 21.09.2001. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder: “In my considered opinion, respondents 1 and 2 cannot be permitted to interfere with the possession of the petitioners unless an appropriate order is passed pursuant to the notice issued under Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act 9 of 1977). In the circumstances, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the land in question without passing an order under Act 9 of 1977. It is further directed that if any order has been passed, the same shall be communicated to avail such remedies as may be available to them in law, in case if any adverse order is passed against them.” It appears the petitioners submitted explanation to the notice served on them under Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 1977 (for short, ‘the Rules’). The Mandal Revenue Officer, after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioners, proceeded to pass the order dated 22.11.2001. The said order is impugned in this writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the land in question is not an assigned land and therefore, the very initiation of the proceedings under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, ‘the Act’), is not legal and proper. A further submission has been made that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gokavaram Mandal-1st respondent has not conducted the enquiry properly and thereby committed a serious error in recording a finding that the land in question is an assigned land. 4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the land in question initially is assigned to Sri Pandiri Moolaiah and after his death, his wife-Pandiri Nookalamma allegedly sold the property to the father of the petitioners and therefore, it is in clear violation of the provisions of the Act. 5. Indisputably, the order impugned in the writ petition is an appealable one under Section 4-A of the Act. Since a statutory remedy is available to the petitioners, I am not inclined to adjudicate the points urged by the respective counsel appearing for the parties. 6. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of reserving the liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal against the impugned order within 30 days from this day before the competent authority i.e. the Revenue Divisional Officer. Till such time, the status quo existing as on this day shall be continued. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:19th June, 2009. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}