IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI ANIL R. DAVE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 355 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18/02/2008 in WP NO : 2685 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Tinneti Chinna W/o. Gurupadam R/o. H.No.1158, Harijanawada, Ambedkarcolony Penamaluru Village and Mandal, Krishna District. 2 Tinneti Anjaiah S/o. Gurupadam, R/o. H.No.1158, Harijanawada, Ambedkarcolony Penamaluru Village and Mandal, Krishna District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The District Collector Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 Thasildar, Penamaluru, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: MRCH.JANARDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : JUDGMENT Per Anil R. Dave, CJ This appeal by the original petitioners is directed against the Judgment of the learned single Judge delivered in W.P.No.2685 of 2008 dated 18.2.2008. The appellants-original petitioners were aggrieved by issuance of a show cause notice bearing Rc.A.677/2006 dated 8.5.2007 by respondent No.3 under the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) as, according to the Government authorities, the appellants had purchased the lands in question in contravention of the provisions of the Act. After hearing the learned Advocates and upon going through the relevant material, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition for the reason that the petition had been filed against a show cause notice and during the pendency of the writ petition final orders have been passed by the Government authorities under Section 4(1) of the Act duly considering the explanation of the appellants, holding that the assignees have violated the provisions of the Act and thus possession of the land in question had also been taken over by the Government authorities. In view of the fact that the order whereby possession of the land in question was taken over by the Government authorities is an appellable order, the learned Single Judge did not pass any order in favour of the appellants. Thus, it is clear that the petition was filed against a show cause notice and during the pendency of the writ petition, final order had already been passed and, therefore, the learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition. We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the just order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Needless to say that it would be open to the appellants to challenge the validity of the final order, which has been passed by the concerned authority during the pendency of the writ petition in accordance with law. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 2nd April, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J vtv