HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.15076 of 2003 Dated: 31-03-2011 Between: S.P.Radha Krishna …Petitioner AND The District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor And another. Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.15076 of 2003 ORDER: On service of notice under Rule 3 of A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 9 of 1977 (for short ‘Act’) on 15.4.2003 by the second respondent, petitioner filed this writ petition to declare the said notice as arbitrary and illegal contending that he had purchased the land admeasuring Ac.4.30 guntas, situated in Sy.No.1042/2 of Basinikonda Village of Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District in the year 1974 under a registered sale deed for a valuable consideration in bona fide faith from the legal heirs of one Rangappa, whose predecessor in title had purchased the said land under a registered sale deed dated 17.2.1947 from one P.Rangappa for a valuable consideration. The second respondent issued a notice dated 22.4.1982 calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation for resumption of the subject-land and later he passed an order without considering the plea put forth by the petitioner canceling the patta granted in favour of the petitioner. Admittedly, petitioner filed W.P.No.10670 of 1984, which was allowed by this Court directing the second respondent to enquire into the matter afresh keeping in mind the observations made thereunder. Later, as the second respondent started interfering with the possession of the petitioner, he filed a suit in O.S.No.81 of 1984 before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Madanapalle seeking declaration of his title and for consequential permanent injunction to restrain the second respondent from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject- land. On dismissal of the suit, petitioner filed an appeal in A.S.No.121 of 1997 before the Additional District Judge, Madanapalle and the said appeal was also dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred S.A.No.479 of 2003 before this Court and sought for interim suspension and injunction. The second appeal was admitted and pending the second appeal this Court granted interim injunction. Therefore, according to the petitioner, pending the second appeal, issuance of the impugned notice is illegal and liable to be set aside. Once the earlier notice issued to the petitioner by the second respondent for resumption of the land was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.10670 of 1984 and when the said writ petition was disposed of directing the second respondent to enquire into the matter afresh keeping in view of the observations made thereunder namely, the issue whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 3(5) of the Act has to be considered on the explanation submitted by the petitioner, it is incumbent upon the second respondent to conduct an enquiry as directed by this Court. In that view of the matter, issuance of the impugned notice cannot be termed as arbitrary and illegal and the same cannot be interdicted only on the ground that the second appeal is pending before this Court. The second respondent, who issued the impugned notice can receive the explanation to be submitted by the petitioner and can decide the matter on merits, but however, he cannot dispossess the petitioner from the subject-land in view of the injunction granted by this Court in the Second Appeal unless and until the said order is modified. If the second respondent passes any adverse orders against the petitioner, he can always have a remedy of appeal and revision under the Act 9 of 1977. In view of the same, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. MARCH 31, 2011 Tsr.