IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR SECOND APPEAL Nos. 466 and 467 of 1999 S.A.No.466 of 1999: BETWEEN Bathala Venkata Subbaiah. …APPELLANT AND The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by the District Collector, Cuddapah and another. …RESPONDENTS S.A.No.467 of 1999: BETWEEN Ramanaboina Venkata Subbaiah. …APPELLANT AND The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by the District Collector, Cuddapah and another. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: SMT. N. SHOBA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ARBITRATION The Court made the following: - COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals arise out of suits for injunction filed by the appellants against the State. 2. The case of the appellants is that they were granted DKT pattas of the suit lands and the defendants had issued notices threatening resumption of the lands on the ground that the appellants/plaintiffs have failed to cultivate the lands in terms of the DKT patta within three years. The plaintiffs assert that they had given a reply to the notices but no proceedings were passed and while apprehending dispossession, they filed the present suits for injunction. The said suits were defended by the State on the ground that remedies on the revenue side are available to the plaintiffs and without exhausting the same; the plaintiffs cannot maintain the suits. The trial Court, however, had decreed the suits but on appeals at the instance of the defendants, the said decrees were reversed. Questioning the said decrees, the present appeals are preferred. 3. This Court admitted the appeals on 04.05.1999 on the substantial questions of law as framed under grounds 1 to 3, which are extracted as under: 1. Whether the suit is maintainable without exhausting the remedies available under the Revenue Board standing orders in the absence of service of order of resumption. 2. Whether the resumption of land valid for violation of condition No.2 stipulated in D.K.T. in not reclaiming the assigned land within three years. 3. Whether on mere ground that there were no entries in village accommodation for having brought the land under cultivation within the stipulated period of the land can be resumed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration. 5. On the admitted fats, as briefly, narrated above, I am unable to find any perversity in the impugned judgments of the lower appellate Court inasmuch as the final orders with regard to resumption, as apprehended by the appellants, appear to have not been passed, as no such proceedings is exhibited even by the defendants in these proceedings, thereby, the apprehension of the appellants is the only basis for approaching the civil Court. It is also not in dispute that the appellant would have adequate remedies on the revenue side by approaching the hierarchy of officials questioning the resumption proceedings, if any. The grievance of the learned counsel for the appellants, however, is that they are forced to approach the civil Court and seek its protection, as no such orders were communicated to them. 6. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents/defendants submits that he will issue necessary instructions to communicate the orders pursuant to the show cause notices in each of these cases to the respective appellants and in such event, the appellants shall have appropriate remedies under the provision of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. 7. In that view of the matter and in view of the fact that there is interim order of status quo operating in favour of the appellants from 04.05.1999, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the second appeal with the following directions: 1. The substantial questions of law are decided against the appellants in view of the fact that the suits for injunction were based only on mere apprehension and no legal right of the appellants was threatened. 2. The defendants shall communicate the orders, if any, passed against the appellants against the show cause notices in question within four (4) weeks from today and the appellants shall be at liberty to move the appropriate authority under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 for appropriate relief within four (4) weeks thereafter. 3. For a period of eight (8) weeks the status quo existing pending these appeals shall continue to operate. The second appeals are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 24, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order in one week. (B/o) DSK