IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.2026 of 2009 Between: 1 Jinnu Satyavathi, W/o. Durgayya, R/o. Dulla Village, Kadiyam Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 Yannamuni Venkata Rao, S/o. Venkata Ratnam, R/o. Dulla Village, Kadiyam Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry Division, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3 Tahsildar, Alamuru Mandal, Alamuru, East Godavari 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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the representation and notice dt. 08- 11-2008 of the petitioners to implement the orders of the 2nd respondent in Ref.No. D/2681/2007 dt. 17-06-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice consequently directing the 3rd respondent to implement the said orders of the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.T.V.S.PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following: ORDER: The Tahsildar, Alamuru, the third respondent herein, issued proceedings, dated 30.06.2007, under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’) directing resumption of land in Survey No.247/4B. The petitioners filed an appeal before the second respondent against the said proceedings. The appeal was allowed on 17.06.2008. By mentioning certain reasons, the second respondent directed that possession of the land be recovered obviously, for the purpose of maintaining a cart track. The grievance of the petitioners is that the third respondent is not implementing the orders passed by the second respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Assignment. In exercise of powers under Section 4 of the Act, the third respondent, no doubt, issued proceedings, dated 30.06.2007. It is not necessary to mention the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that the petitioners felt aggrieved by the said proceedings, filed the appeal before the second respondent. After discussing the matter in detail, the second respondent by his order, dated 30.06.2007, set aside the proceedings of the third respondent, dated 30.06.2007, and directed that the land be taken back from the original assignees or their legal heirs and kept in safe custody with the Government so as to form a Punta. As long as this order stands, the third respondent has no obligation to implement the same. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the third respondent is directed to implement the order, dated 17.06.2008, passed by the second respondent, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 13th FEBRUARY, 2009. kvni