HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 4592 OF 2010. DATED 26TH FEBRUARY, 2010. BETWEEN M.Uma Maheswara Reddy …..Petitioner and The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam, Khammam District and ors. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 4592 OF 2010. ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the ﬁrst respondent in not granting stay of dispossession by suspending the order of the second respondent in proceedings Rc.No.B/4105/211/2007, dated 25.8.2007 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 1977 and Rules made therein and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.39/27 of Siddaram village, Sathupalli Mandal, Khammam District. Heard both sides. According to the petitioner, he purchased an extent of Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.39/27 of Siddaram village, Sathupalli Mandal, Khammam District in the year 1969 under a registered sale deed and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since then. While that being so, the second respondent-Tahsildar issued notice dated 1.4.2007 along with Form.II under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 stating that the subject land is an assigned land and the petitioner has purchased the same in violation of the conditions of assignment and therefore the same is liable to be cancelled under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers)Act, 1977 and thereby asked him to explain as to why the same shall not be cancelled. It appears, the petitioner in response to the said notice, ﬁled his explanation on 9.4.2007. According to the petitioner, without referring to the explanation submitted by him and further by mentioning that the petitioner has not submitted explanation in response to the said notice, the second respondent- Tahsildar passed order dated 25.8.2007 for resumption of the subject land. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner ﬁled Writ Petition No. 131 of 2008 before this Court. The said Writ Petition was disposed of along with batch by order dated 18.1.2008 directing the petitioner to ﬁle an appeal before the appropriate authority within ten days from the date of the said order and directed to maintain status quo obtaining as on that date for a period of ﬁfteen days. According to the petitioner, he ﬁled an appeal in time and also an application seeking stay of the order passed by the second respondent dated 25.8.2007. Though the appeal is taken on ﬁle, the said application seeking stay of the order dated 25.8.2007 is not disposed of by the appellate authority till date. Taking advantage of the same, the second respondent tried to dispossess the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has purchased the subject land in the year 1969 and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same for more than forty years. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question during the pendency of the appeal purported to have been ﬁled by the petitioner against the order of the second respondent dated 25.8.2007. There shall be an order accordingly. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No order as to costs. ------------------------------------ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU DATED 26T H FEBRUARY, 2010. Note: Operative portion by wire at party’s costs. (BO) Msnr.