THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No :497 of 2008 DATED:18-01-2008 BETWEEN: Bora Sanyasamma & another. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam & another. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 2. Petitioners seek a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the 1st respondent in L.Dis.No.6256/2007/A, dated 06-12-2007, and quash or set aside the same; and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the property admeasuring an extent of Ac.4.89 cents in Sy.No.133/10 of Paradesipalem Gram Panchayat, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that both of them are the daughters of one Chandaka Sanyasi, and the said Sanyasi was assigned an extent of Ac.4.89 cents in Sy.No.133/10 situated at Paradesipalem Gram Panchayat, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal in 1971 vide DKT patta No.537, D.R.No.104/71. The said original assignee died on 13-07-1998 and his wife-mother of the petitioners also died on 21- 12-1999 and thereafter, petitioners being the legal heirs, are entitled to inherit the said property. It is stated that when the petitioners applied for Adangals it was informed to them that a case in W.P.No.4789 of 2005 was pending and in the counter it was stated that the said land was resumed by the Government vide proceedings in R.C.No.27 of 2005, dated 26-02-2005. Accordingly, petitioners made an application for furnishing the copy of the said resumption orders and the resumption orders were obtained by the petitioners on 15-07-2006 and the appeal has been filed on 22-08-2006 i.e., within ninety days from the date of receipt of the said order but the appellate authority/Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal has been filed beyond the prescribed time and accordingly rejected the same stating that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the appeal as they are not the parties to the resumption orders and the appeal is also time barred. 4. The relevant provision to file appeal is under Section 4A(1) of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’) but not under Board Standing Orders 15. When a statutory provision is available to file an appeal by the aggrieved person the statutory provision will prevail over the Board Standing Orders. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam ought to have considered the appeal under Section 4A(1) of the Act as to whether the appeal has been filed within ninety days from the date of receipt of the copy by the appellants and whether the appellants are the legal heirs or not, but without considering the relevant factors rejection of the appeal by the impugned memo, dated 06- 12-2007, exercising the powers under the Board Standing Orders 15, is unsustainable. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law as indicated above. 6. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 18th January, 2008. Tsy