HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 4593OF 2010. DATED 26TH FEBRUARY, 2010. BETWEEN M.Satyavani and two others …..Petitioners and The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam, Khammam District and ors. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 4593 OF 2010. ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the ﬁrst respondent in not granting stay of dispossession by suspending the order of the second respondent in proceedings Rc.No.B/4105/212/2007, dated 25.8.2007 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 1977 and Rules made therein and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land of the petitioners admeasuring Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.39/72 of Siddaram village, Sathupalli Mandal, Khammam District. Heard both sides. According to the petitioners, the husband of the ﬁrst petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.39/72 of Siddaram village, Sathupalli Mandal, Khammam District in the year 1969 under a registered sale deed. After the said purchase, the petitioners got mutated their names in the revenue records and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same since then. While that being so, the second respondent- Tahsildar issued notice dated 1.4.2007 along with Form.II under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 stating that the subject land is an assigned land and the petitioners have purchased the same in violation of the conditions of assignment and therefore the same is liable to be cancelled under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers)Act, 1977 and thereby asked them to explain as to why the same shall not be cancelled. It appears, the petitioners in response to the said notice, ﬁled their explanation on 9.4.2007. According to the petitioners, without referring to the explanation submitted by them and further by mentioning that the petitioners have not submitted explanation in response to the said notice, the second respondent-Tahsildar passed order dated 25.8.2007 for resumption of the subject land. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners ﬁled Writ Petition No. 135 of 2008 before this Court. The said Writ Petition was disposed of along with batch by order dated 18.1.2008 directing the petitioners to ﬁle an appeal before the appropriate authority within ten days from the date of the said order and directed to maintain status quo obtaining as on that date for a period of ﬁfteen days. According to the petitioners, they ﬁled an appeal in time and also an application seeking stay of the order passed by the second respondent dated 25.8.2007. Though the appeal is taken on ﬁle, the said application seeking stay of the order dated 25.8.2007 is not disposed of by the appellate authority till date. Taking advantage of the same, the second respondent tried to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners have purchased the subject land in the year 1969 and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same for more than forty years. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the land in question during the pendency of the appeal purported to have been ﬁled by the petitioners against the order of the second respondent dated 25.8.2007. There shall be an order accordingly. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No order as to costs. ------------------------------------ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU DATED 26T H FEBRUARY, 2010. Note: Operative portion by wire at party’s costs. (BO) Msnr.