IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 45 of 2008 Between: Dekollu Saibabu S/o. Late Dekollu Venkateswara Rao Lokumudi village, Mandavalli Mandal Krishna District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam 2 The Revenue Divisional officer, Gudivada, Krishna district 3 The Tahsildar, Mandavalli Mandal, Mandavalli Krishna district ...RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the proposed action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the proceedings in Rc.A.187/2007 dated 10.8.2007 against a dead person for land to an extent of Ac.0.95 cents in RS.No.3/1 situated at Lokumudi village, Mandavalli Mandal, Krishna district as illegal, null and void abinitio, violative of principles of natural justice and for a consequential order directing the respondents to drop all further proceedings in this regard and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.V.PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner questions the order of the Tahsildar, Mandavalli Mandal, Krishna District passed in proceedings RC.A.187/2007 dated 10.08.2007 in resuming the land of an extent of Ac.0.95 cents in Sy.No.3/1 of Lokumudi Village, on the ground that the said land was originally assigned in favour of one Bonu Venkateswara Rao but the said land has been found in possession of the one Dekollu Venkateswara Rao the father of the petitioner herein. 2. The impugned order goes to show that a show cause notice dated 14.06.2007 has been issued to the assignee as well as the alienee but no explanation has been submitted, therefore, final orders have been passed. It is stated that the father of the petitioner died on 23.10.2007 i.e. subsequent to the passing of the impugned order dated 10.08.2007. There is no dispute with regard to the service of notice on the father of the petitioner and admittedly the father of the petitioner is not an assignee but he is a purchaser. Therefore, the assigned lands are not alienable. The impugned order passed by the Tahsildar is appeallable under Section 4-A(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’) and without availing the remedy of appeal, I am of the opinion that invoking the discretionary remedy under extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be just and proper. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J February 29, 2008 DSK