IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR SECOND APPEAL No.1118 of 2009 BETWEEN Vegi Sambasiva Rao. …APPELLANT AND The Mandal Revenue Officer, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam and another. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR. K.V. SUBRAHMANYA NARUSU Counsel for the Respondents: --NONE APPEARED-- The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This second appeal is by the plaintiff questioning the concurrent judgment and decree of both the Courts below. The plaintiff had filed O.S.No.946 of 2001 for declaration claiming that the show cause notice issued under Section 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 9 of 1977 (for short ‘the Act’) as illegal, invalid and for consequential permanent injunction from dispossessing him. 2. The suit on contest has been dismissed by the trial Court, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff has to avail remedies provided to him under the Act. The lower appellate Court under the impugned judgment and decree in A.S.No.254 of 2006 has confirmed the said judgment and decree by holding that for any action contemplated under the Act, jurisdiction of the civil Court is not available, as found by the trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant raised the question of jurisdiction of the civil Court by contending that it is not barred and alternatively seeks liberty to avail remedies under the Act. 4. I am not inclined to go into that aspect of maintainability inasmuch as the appellant has only been given a notice under Section 3(2) of the Act and under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder adequate remedies are available to the plaintiff to file explanation and seek adjudication of his claim. Bypassing the said remedies, the plaintiff filed the present suit questioning the show cause notice on the ground that it is illegal and invalid. The lower Courts proceeded to non-suit the plaintiff on the ground that no suit is maintainable. 5. However, keeping in view the remedies available to the plaintiff against the said show cause notice it is not necessary to adjudicate upon any of the issues as both the Courts below have already dismissed the suit on the ground of maintainability. I am, therefore, not inclined to entertain the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, this will not preclude the plaintiff from filing objections to the show cause notice and approach the authorities and the tribunal under the Act for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law. No substantial question of law arises for consideration on the facts and circumstances of the case. Second appeal is accordingly dismissed with the observations as above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 22, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order in one week. (B/o) DSK