THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 9149 OF 2008 Dated: 25.10.2010 Between: Budipudi Venkataramayya ..... PETITIONER AND The Tahsildar, Mylavaram Mandal, Krishna District .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 9149 OF 2008 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondent in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0.89 cents in RS.No.239/1 and Ac.1.78 cents in RS.No.240/3 of Ganapavaram Village, Mylavaram Mandal, Krishna District, is arbitrary and illegal. It is pleaded by the petitioner that a notice dated 27.04.2007 was issued under Section 3 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, ‘the Act’) calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be summarily evicted from the land in question alleging that he was in possession of the assigned lands. It is stated that the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 28.04.2007. Alleging that without passing any final order thereupon, the respondent has been trying to dispossess the petitioner highhandedly, the present writ petition has been filed. This Court, while issuing rule nisi, by order dated 24.04.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.12100 of 2008 directed that status quo obtaining as on that date shall be maintained. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent, in which the fact that the show cause notice dated 27.04.2007 was issued to the petitioner under Section 3 (2) of the Act has not been disputed. However, it is stated that the said notice was inadvertently issued by mistake and as a matter of fact, resumption order was already passed on 30.06.1986. It is also stated that the possession of the land in question was taken and restored to the legal heirs of the original assignee on 15.04.2005 itself. Heard both sides. The plea in the counter affidavit that a resumption was already ordered on 30.06.1986 has been disputed by the petitioner and it is contended that such order has never been communicated to the petitioner. Nothing could be placed before this Court by the respondents to show that the order dated 30.06.1986 was served on the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly having regard to the fact that in response to the show cause notice dated 27.04.2007, the petitioner has already submitted his explanation, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the explanation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till such time, status quo ordered by this Court on 24.04.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.12100 of 2008 shall continue. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________ Date: 25.10.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd