IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 8265 of 2008 Between: Chitturi Nagaratnam W/o. Chitturi Reddi R/o. Avidi, Kothapeta Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officerr, Amalapuram Division, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. 3 The Tahsildar, Kothapeta Tahsil, Kothapeta, East Godavari District. 4 Nakka Katlayya S/o. Ramaiah R/o. Avidi Village,Kothapeta Mandal,East Godavari 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 writ, direction or order, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 3rd respondent vide Ref.(A)70/77 dated 10.06.2007 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of Natural Justice, Doctrine of Fair Play, Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and the provisions of Act 9 of 1977 as amended by Act 8 of 2007 and consequently, set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SUBBA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 8265 of 2008 Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and at their request the matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the absolute owner of the property in an extent of Ac.0.23 cents of land in Survey No. 538/8 of Avidi Village, Kothapet Mandal, East Godavari District, having purchased the same under an oral sale in the year 1991 and since then she has been cultivating the said land. While so, in the last week of March 2008 the staff of the 3rd respondent directed the petitioner to vacate the land on the ground that orders were passed under Act 9 of 1977. The grievance of the petitioner is that no prior notice was issued to her before passing such orders and, therefore, she filed the present writ petition seeking to declare the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 10.06.2007 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to set aside the same. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that against the impugned orders, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of filing an appeal, which fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to avail the effective alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned orders before the Revenue Divisional Officer, under Section 4-A of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, within a period of four weeks from today. Till such time, the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent shall be kept in abeyance. No costs. ________________ N.V.RAMANA, J. Date: 17.04.2008 Note: Issue CC in two days (B/o) Ksr/Nsr