THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.1767 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was assigned an extent of 35 guntas of land in Sy.No.185 of Yellakkapet Village, Chennur Mandal, Adilabad District, in the year 1996. It is stated that the petitioner was in possession of the land, much prior thereto. The Joint Collector, Adilabad, the 3rd respondent herein, issued show cause notice dated 21-03-2006, in exercise of power under Section 166-B of the A.P (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act (for short ‘the Act’), directing the petitioner to explain as to why the assignment made in her favour shall not be cancelled. It was alleged that the husband of the petitioner is an employee of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, and that she was not eligible to be assigned the land. The petitioner submitted explanation to the show cause notice, on 15-04-2006. The 3rd respondent passed an order dated 30-04-2009, cancelling the assignment made in favour of the petitioner. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard Sri S. Sharath Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The 3rd respondent invoked his power under Section 166-B of the Act, and issued show cause notice to the petitioner, requiring her to explain as to why the assignment made in her favour, be not cancelled. In her explanation, the petitioner urged several grounds. The 3rd respondent passed a common order, in respect of four individuals. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has urged several contentions, this Court is of the view that, they have to be canvassed before the Appellate Authority. It is stated that the petitioner has already presented appeal before the 1st respondent. As regards the possession of the land, learned Government Pleader submits that it has already been resumed to the Government. It is not in dispute that the petitioner constructed a house on the land, assigned to her. Cotton crop is said to have been raised in the remaining land. The petitioner is entitled to avail the remedy of appeal, and she cannot be dispossessed during the pendency of the appeal. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the order dated 30-04-2009, passed by the 3rd respondent, shall remain suspended, and that the petitioner shall be entitled to remain in possession of the land, assigned to her, till the 1st respondent disposes of the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.09-02-2010. KO