IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 545 of 2009 Between: Mohd. Shaber S/o. M.A. Hafeez R/o. H.No.5-9-1049, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer Shamshabad Mandal Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer East Division Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ or order more in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the Orde No.B/1478/2006, dt.27-11-2006 passed by the Respondent No.1, as illegal and arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.GOVIND REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No. 545 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner purchased Ac.32-00 of land in Survey Nos.72 and 73 of Kothwalguda village of Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in the year 1995 from different persons. Alleging that the lands were assigned by the Government to the landless poor, proceedings under Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated. Notice in Form No.1 was issued. Stating that the purchaser failed to submit a reply to show cause notice, the first respondent passed an order dated 27.11.2006 declaring that the sale deeds are null and void and directing the resumption of the land to Government. The petitioner states that he could not submit reply to show cause notice since he was involved in a criminal case at the relevant point of time and that copy of the impugned order was served upon him recently. He submits t hat the lands in question were declared as surplus under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act,1973 and were allotted by collecting certain amounts, and in that view of the matter, the provisions of the Act do not apply. He complains that the respondents are taking steps to dispossess him. It is stated that a metal crushing unit is established on the land. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The impugned order is passed in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Act. A right of appeal is provided to an affected person. The order was passed more than two years ago. If the plea raised by the petitioner that the order was served upon him recently is true, the same deserves to be taken into account in the context of computing the limitation for filing an appeal. Such eventuality arises if only the petitioner approaches the appellate authority. This court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this stage. The interest of the petitioner can be protected by directing the maintenance of status-quo for a limited period to enable the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that it shall be open to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority by preferring an appeal within two weeks from today by explaining the delay in presentation of the same. Status-quo shall be maintained for a period of four weeks. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 21-01-2009 Note: C.C. in three days. B/o. Stp