IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE TWELTHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 10081 of 2008 Between: 1 Sri Palakurthi Srinivas Goud, s/o. Balram Goud Late R/o. Dommarapochampally (V), Quthbullapur (M), R.R.District. 2 Sri Baindla Narasimha @ Narsayya S/o. Baindla Venkaiah late R/o. Dommarapochampally (V), Quthbullapur (M), R.R.District. 3 Sri Bonggunuri Narsimha Reddy s/o. Late Sri B.Yadi Reddy R/o. Dommarapochampally (V), Quthbullapur (M), R.R.District. 4 Sri Bongunuri Madhava Reddy s/o. Late B.Malla Reddy R/o. Dommarapochampally (V), Quthbullapur (M), R.R.District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Special Grade Deputy Collector-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, East Divisiona R.R.Dsitrict at Malakunta Raod, Goshamahal Hyd. 2 The Deputy Collector & M.R.O., Quthbullapur mandal, at Gandhimaisamma X Road, R.R.Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or dierction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus to set aside the order of the Respondent No.2 Proc.No. A/250/2004 dt. 23.2.2007 consequently directing the respondents to reassign the Agricultural land ituated at Dommarapochampally Village in Favour of the Petitioenr No.1 Ac.3.00 in Sy.No. 120/6, petitioner No.2 Ac. 0.20 in Sy.No. 120/16 petitioner No.3 Ac. 3.00 in Sy.no. 120/34, petitioner No.4 Ac.3.100 in Sy.No. 120/35 as per the bill No. 13 of 2008 dt. 19-3-2008 as Amendment ( POT ) Act 1977 Section 2(b)(i) to continue their Agridcultural Operation on the Schedule land as it is in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BOLLAM LINGAIAH YADAV Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R:- Though the petitioners filed the writ petition seeking to set aside the order dated 23.2.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent, namely the Mandal Revenue Officer, Qutbullapur Mandal, and for a consequential direction to the respondents to re-assign the agricultural lands of various extents situated at Dommara Pochampally village in favour of the petitioners and to allow them to continue with their agricultural operations, but when the same was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners restricted his prayer in the writ petition to that of directing the 1st respondent, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, R.R. District to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the orders dated 23.2.2007, passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 4-A(I) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue expressed no objection for directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the 2nd respondent. In view of the agreed stand taken by both the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Asst. Government Pleader for Revenue, the writ petition is disposed with the following direction: The 1st respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the orders dated 23.2.2007, passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 4-A(I) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 12th June 2008 Ksr/bcj