THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25075 of 2010 Date: 25.11.2010 Between: S.Valyanaik ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Srinivas Counsel for Respondent: AGP for Revenue (Assignment) The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in dispossessing the petitioners from the lands allotted to them in Survey No.125 of Kurugunta Village, Anantapur Rural and District as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners sought for a direction to the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above-mentioned property in their respective occupation. A perusal of the record shows that on 11.07.1957, the land in Survey No.125-1 belonging to the Government was assigned to certain persons. However, under order, dated 20.04.1994, those lands were resumed and a layout was prepared for providing house sites to 301 beneficiaries to be assigned Ac.0.03 cents each and accordingly house site pattas were issued by the then Mandal, Revenue Officer, Anantapur on 28.09.1994. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are among those who were given house site pattas. On the ground that despite lapse of 14 years, the beneficiaries have not constructed houses, the land was stated to have been resumed by an order, dated 27.05.2008, passed by respondent No.3. In the writ petition, the order of resumption has not been referred to by the petitioners. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that his clients are not aware of such resumption order and that for the first time, they have come to know of this fact through the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3. In the counter affidavit, it is pleaded that when notices were sought to be served, respondent No.3 could not succeed in doing so, as the petitioners were not available and that service was effected through substituted service by affixture on site. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) passed on a copy of the order of resumption. She has also supplied a copy of such order to the learned counsel for the petitioners. In my opinion, when an order of resumption has been passed, the petitioners are entitled to avail the appropriate remedy to question the same. As the writ petition is filed on the premise that their pattas are still in subsistence and in view of the stand taken by the respondents that they are no longer in force, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this writ petition. The petitioners are, therefore, permitted to avail the appropriate remedy in accordance with law in order to question the order, dated 27.05.2008, of respondent No.3. However, as it is admitted by the respondents that the petitioners are presently in possession of the land by allegedly reoccupying the same, the respondents are directed not to evict them for a period of two months to enable the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedy against the resumption order, dated 27.05.2008. The petitioners are entitled to explain the delay, if any, occurred in filing the appeal and the appellate authority shall consider the said explanation in the light of the plea of the petitioners that they were not served with the order of resumption. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, the interim order granted by this Court on 06.10.2010 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.32056 and W.V.M.P.No.5371 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dt.25.11.2010 Note: Issue CC in one week. (b/o) VGB