THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3003 of 2009 ORDER: The Tahsildar, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District, 3rd respondent herein passed an order, dated 18.08.2008 against the petitioner directing resumption of Ac.7.06 cents of land in Survey No.217/1 of Nadimpalem Village. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional officer, Guntur, 2nd respondent herein. The appeal was rejected on 15.11.2008. Thereafter, she filed a further appeal under Section 4-A (2) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’) before the 1st respondent with an application for stay. The grievance of the petitioner is that no orders have been passed in the application for stay and that on the basis of an observation made by the 2nd respondent that the possession of the land was taken on 14.09.2008, the third respondent is trying to dispossess the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner lost his appeal before the 2nd respondent and has now availed a further remedy before the 1st respondent. The dispute is only as regards the interim measures pending disposal of the appeal. From a perusal of the order, dated 18.08.2008, it is clear that the 3rd respondent mentioned that the appeal to the 2nd respondent can be availed within 90 days from the date of receipt of the order. The very purpose of providing a remedy of appeal is to enable the parties to seek redressal. An authority, who passes an order, is not supposed to take any steps before the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed in the further remedy. While disposing of the appeal filed before him, the 2nd respondent made an observation to the effect that the possession was taken on 14.09.2008. Such a statement cannot be countenanced and in fact would run contrary to the very scheme under the Act. The petitioner is entitled to remain in possession, till the expiry of the period of limitation for preferring the appeal. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land admeasuring Ac.7.06 cents in Survey No.217/1 of Nadimpalem Village, during the pendency of the appeal before the 1st respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 17.02.2009 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3003 of 2009 Date: 17.02.2009 JSU