THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.2516 of 2008 Between: Lokanadham Krishna and another. .. PETITIONERS and The Tahsildar and others. .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.2516 of 2008 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioners that their father Paidaiah and one Lokanadham Dalayya are the brothers. It is stated that Lokanadham Dalayya was assigned the land admeasuring Ac.4-05 cents covered by Sy.Nos.195/1, 199/1, 213 and 215 respectively situated at Thanthadi Village, Atchyuthapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. It is stated that the said Dalayya had no issues and his wife pre-deceased him. Therefore, the petitioners being the legal heirs of Dalayya, they are entitled to succeed the property of Dalayya. The said Dalayya also executed a Will dated 05-02- 1999 bequeathing his properties in favour of the petitioners. The said Dalayya died on 25-02-2003. While so, the 1st respondent issued impugned order in proceedings Rc.No.534/2006/B, dated 08-09-2007, stating that the said land was assigned in favour of Lokanadham Dalayya but the said land was purchased by one Smt.Bandi Yandiamma for valuable consideration through registered sale deed. Accordingly, Form-I notice has been issued to the purchaser but the purchaser has not filed any explanation. Therefore, the resumption order has been passed holding that transfer of the land in favour of Bandi Yandiamma is in violation of provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “the Act”) and accordingly, directed the Village Revenue Officer, Thantadi Village, to take possession of the said land into Government custody. According to the resumption order, one Bandi Yandiamma was found in possession of the land, but according to the petitioners, they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same as they being the legal heirs of Dalayya and also by virtue of the Will said to have been executed by Dalayya. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the said Bandi Yandiamma purchased the said land and Form-I notice was issued to her directing to submit explanation within 15 days as to why she should not be summarily evicted from the said assigned land. But, the said notice was not service on Bandi Yandiamma and, therefore, substitute service was made by hanging notice in the fields. But, the said purchaser has not submitted any explanation. It is the case of the petitioners that Bandi Yandiamma has not purchased the said land and the petitioners being the legal heirs of Dalayya, they are entitled to inherit the said land. Admittedly, against the impugned order, an appeal lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam, under Section 4-A (1) of the Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to file an appeal before the 2nd respondent against the resumption order passed by the 1st respondent, dated 08-09- 2007, in proceedings Rc.No.534/2006/B, within ten days from today. If any such appeal is filed within ten days from today, status-quo obtaining as on today with regard to possession shall be maintained, pending disposal of the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 08-02-2008 Note: Issue C.C. by Monday (B/o) Prv