THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.16736 of 2007 Dated:07.08.2007 Between: Patra Saritha, W/o.Prem Kumar, and another. …Petitioners and The Tahasildar, and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.16736 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioners are residents of Khammam District. Statedly, they purchased an extent of Acs.2.00 of land in Survey No.147 situated at Velugumatla Village of Khammam (Urban) Mandal in Khammam District from M/s.Guglothu Ramsingh and Guglothu Mothu under registered sale deeds. Admittedly, the above said land originally belonged to Gugulothu Thulisa. He was assigned Bhoodhan land. Nevertheless, the first respondent initiated action and after issuing show cause notice and receiving explanation, passed order under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’), vide proceedings in Rc.No.B/3324/2007-15, dated 20.07.2007, ordering resumption of the land from the petitioners for public purpose. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed an appeal on 28.07.2007 under Section 4-A of the Act before the second respondent. They also sought for necessary interim orders staying further proceedings consequent to the impugned order. The appeal is still pending. But, still the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition raising a question that when the land is admittedly, the one, assigned by Bhoodhan Yagna Board, the provisions of the Act are not applicable, and that the land purchased by the petitioners is not “assigned land” within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court in Ramachander v. District Revenue Officer[1]. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) opposed the Writ Petition contending that when once statutory appeal is filed, a Writ Petition would not lie. It is well settled by reason of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority v. Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd.,[2] that when once the statute determines rights and liabilities of a person, and provides for remedies, such person should avail such remedies under the statute before coming to this Court. Secondly, it is also well settled that when such person has already availed such remedy, and merely because the statutory authority before whom the appeal is filed is not taking up the matter or failed to pass interim orders as prayed, the jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked. Having regard to the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere in this Writ Petition at this stage. Liberty is given to the petitioners to raise all preliminary objections and also place before the second respondent the decision of this Court in W.P.No.4503 of 1975, dated 16.12.1976. The second respondent shall have to necessarily consider the questions raised by the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that though the order was passed by the first respondent on 20.07.2007, the land is not resumed, and the petitioners are still in possession. To enable the petitioners to obtain appropriate orders from the second respondent – appellate authority; there shall be status quo for a period of two weeks from today. This is not opposed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to raise all objections including the objections raised in this Writ Petition, and the second respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of two weeks keeping in view the provisions of the Act as well as the decision of this Court in W.P.No.4503 of 1975, dated 16.12.1976. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 07.08.2007 Note: Issue C.C by 09.08.2007. B/o. vs [1] W.P.No.4503 of 1975, dated 16.12.1976. [2] (1995) 1 SCC 642