IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3435 of 2009 Between: P. Jaya Bharathi W/o. Palli Amaranath H.No.24-110, Mettavari Street, Ward No.14, Punganur, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Chittoor 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Punganur, Chittoor District. 3 The Tahsildar, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing notice dated 13.4.2007 under Rule 3 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 1977, as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the lands in Sy.No.135/14 admeasuring Ac.0.43 3/4 cents of dry land situated in Mangalam Village, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MRS.PULIPATI RADHIKA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.3435 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner challenges the action of the Tahsildar, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District, the third respondent, in issuing the notice, dated 13.04.2007, under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). She contends that the land mentioned in the notice, namely, Acs.1.66 cents in Survey No.135/14 of Mangalam village, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District, is not hit by the provisions of the Act and that herself is a landless poor. Certain other grounds are also urged. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The impugned notice was issued by the Tahsildar, who is admittedly the competent authority under the Act and the Rules. It is not known as to whether the petitioner has submitted any explanation so far. It is also not clear as to whether any orders are passed by the third respondent so far. The petitioner has to put forward all her contentions before the third respondent and even if an order adverse to her interest is passed, she has to avail the remedy of appeal before the second respondent. This Court cannot interfere at this stage. The interests of the petitioner can be protected by giving an opportunity to file explanation, subject to certain conditions. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that – (a) It shall be open to the petitioner to submit explanation to the show cause notice, dated 13.04.2007, within a period of two weeks from today. (b) In case no orders are passed in pursuance of the impugned show cause notice by this time, the third respondent shall take the explanation submitted by the petitioner into account and pass appropriate orders thereon. (c) If orders have already been passed, it shall be open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal within a period of four weeks from today. ( d ) Status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained for a period of six weeks. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.Narasimha Reddy, J Dt.24.02.2009 Note: Issue CC in three days. (b/o) VGB