THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11150 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s land to an extent of Acs.7.71 cents covered by R.S.Nos.26/7, 26/6 situated at P.L.Puram Village Panchayat, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that the above said land was purchased by him by a registered sale deed from its earlier owners and in spite of the same, the respondents are interfering with his peaceful possession. It is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel for respondent No.4 that the said land was originally assigned in favour of the fourth respondent and another and as the said assignees transferred the land in violation of the conditions of grant, the Tahsildar, Payakaraopet Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, after conducting necessary enquiry, ordered resumption of the land in exercise of powers under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). It is the case of the respondents that the land in question was taken into custody by the Government. When it is stated that a copy of such resumption order passed under the provisions of the Act was enclosed with the implead petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed service of such order on the petitioner, as such, the matter was adjourned to enable the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment so as to report when such orders are served on the petitioner. When the matter is taken up today, it is submitted that the order of resumption passed by the Tahsildar was sent by ordinary post and there is no proof of service on the petitioner. So far as this writ petition is concerned, it is not the writ petition questioning the order of resumption. Against the order of resumption passed under the provisions of the Act, there is a right of appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer under the scheme of the aforesaid Act. As it is represented by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for respondents 1 to 3 that there is no proof of service of resumption order passed against the petitioner with regard to the land in question, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to question the order of resumption by way of appeal before the appellate authority, within a period of eight (8) weeks from today. It is open to him to file an application along with the appeal, seeking to grant interim orders. There shall be a direction to the respondents to maintain status quo with regard to possession of the land in question for a period of ten (10) weeks from today. It is also open to the petitioner to move appropriate application before the appellate authority for further orders. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 20th JUNE, 2011. kvni