THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.1051 of 2008 Dated:26.08.2010 Between: Kutikoppula Ramaswamy, And others. ….Petitioners And The Tahsildar, Mandavalli Mandal, Mandavalli, Krishna District, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.1051 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners who are five in number were statedly assigned different extents of land totally admeasuring Acs.10.85 cents comprised in R.S.Nos.139/1, 139/3, 139/2, 141/1, 2 and 4 situated at Unikili Village of Mandavalli Mandal in Krishna District. They further alleged that they have taken possession of land, and cultivating the same. The first respondent initiated action under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (the Act), and issued notice to the petitioners in Form No.I on 21.09.2007. Be that as it is, after issuing such notice, the first respondent passed the impugned proceedings, being Rc.A.187/2007, dated 26.11.2007, resuming the land to the Government on the ground that the petitioners alienated the land to Sri Boppana Hari Rambabu in contravention of Sections 3(1) and (2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition. The petitioners contend that after receiving notice, all of them submitted explanations in October 2007 taking the plea that they did not alienate the land to Sri Boppana Hari Rambabu, and that they are still in possession of the land. But, without taking the explanation into consideration, the first respondent passed the impugned orders under Section 4(1) of the Act, which is illegal and arbitrary. This Court heard the Counsel for the petitioners, who reiterated the submissions which were pleaded in the affidavit accompanying writ petition. The Assistant Government Pleader submits that though the petitioners and the third respondent denied having entered into the sales transaction, the purchaser has preferred an appeal under Section 4-A of the Act, to the Revenue Divisional Officer, and that the same is pending. This is not denied by the petitioners’ Counsel. There is no dispute that the appeal is pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Whether the appeal is filed against the impugned order by the alienees or the assignees, the Revenue Divisional Officer is required to give notice to the assignees as well. The petitioners are also given liberty to get impleaded in the appeals pending before the second respondent and produce necessary material. The petitioners contend that they are in possession of the land. This Court also passed orders of stay on 24.01.2008 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not come forward with any application to vacate the same. Therefore, it would be in the interest of the parties to order status quo as on today. The writ petition, with the above observation, is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the second respondent and file appropriate implead petition in the appeal filed by the third respondent or any third party. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 26.08.2010 vs