HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 4008 OF 2011. DATED 21st February, 2011. BETWEEN Kommari Narasimha and ors …Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and ors. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 4008 OF 2011. ORDER: The petitioners were issued notice under Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 on 22.2.2010, to which they have submitted their explanation. However, the fourth respondent vide order in proceedings dated 2.7.2010 passed resumption orders against the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the said order of the fourth respondent by filing appeal before the third respondent, who dismissed the appeal vide order dated 17.1.2011. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, inter alia submits that the petitioners had purchased the land even prior to the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 came into force and hence the resumption orders are wholly illegal. The notice issued to the petitioners is in complete violation of the judgment of this Court in Dasari Narayana Rao Vs. Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer,Serilingampally, RR District {2010(4) ALT 655) and hence the same is liable to be set aside. However, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that against the order of the appellate authority, revision under Section 4-B of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers ) Act, 1977 lies and hence, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable. After hearing the parties, it is clear that the petitioners have statutory remedy of revision under Section 4-B of the Act and without exhausting the alternative remedy, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. However, the petitioners are given liberty to file revision, if so advised, against the order passed by the fourth respondent before the District Collector. In case any revision is filed, the question of condonation of delay may sympathetically be considered as the petitioner had been pursuing remedy before this Court. The petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the subject land for a period of one month from day. The second respondent shall pass appropriate orders on the application for interim direction, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 21st February, 2011. Note: Registry is directed to return the Original orders filed in this Writ Petition to the learned Counsel for the petitioner after taking due endorsement. (BO) Msnro