THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No :3134 of 2008 DATED:15-02-2008 BETWEEN: K.Mahaboob Ali Khan & another. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Principal Secretary, Revenue, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad & 3 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; learned Government Pleader for Transport; and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 2. Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in acquiring the land to an extent of Ac.5.14 cents of agricultural land situated in Sy.No.891 of Rayachoty mandal, Kadapa District belonging to the petitioners without following due process of law and allotting the same to the 4th respondent, without passing any orders in the appeal No.E.177/08 before the 2nd respondent, as illegal, and arbitrary. 3. It is stated that against the resumption orders passed by the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar, Rayachoty mandal, Kadapa District in Ref.No.B/386-123/125/07, dated 06-11-2007, in resuming the lands of an extent of Ac.5.14 cents in Sy.No.891 situated at Rayachoty mandal, Kadapa District on the ground that the said lands were assigned in favour of one Bathula Venkatesu vide DKT file No.464 DKT 1364 Fasli in the year, 1954 and after that several transactions have been taken place in respect of the assignment of the said lands and therefore the provisions of sub-Section 2 of Section 3 of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’) have been violated. It is further stated that against the said order, petitioners, claiming to be in possession, filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa on 09-02-2008 within the prescribed time. It is stated that the resumption order has been received on 24-01-2008 and therefore, the appeal filed on 09-02-2008 is within time. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that the possession of the said lands has already been taken and test track of the vehicles for the purpose of transport department has been developed. 5. I am not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the merits of the case or whether the appeal has been filed within time or not but however, if the said appeal said to have been filed on 09-02-2008 is pending, the 2nd respondent may consider and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law and pending disposal of the appeal status quo, obtaining as on today, with regard to possession shall be maintained. 6. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 15th February, 2008. Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 16-02-2008 B/o Tsy