THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P. No. 9586 of 2006 Dated. 24–02-2011 Between: Dr. D.N. Rao …Petitioner Vs. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bommala Ramaram Mandal, Nalgonda District and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No.9586 of 2006 Dated: 24-02-2011 ORAL ORDER: By the impugned order dated 31-03-2006, the 1st respondent declared the petitioner to be in unlawful possession of an extent of Ac.45-20 cents in survey No. 124 of Malyala village, Bommala Ramaram Mandal i.e., in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’) for having purchased these lands from seventeen (17) assignees. Earlier, the writ petitioner filed W.P.No. 15225 of 2004 aggrieved by a notice dated 09-08-2004 issued by the 1st respondent herein under Section 3 of the Act. The said writ petition was disposed of remitting the matter to the 1st respondent for de novo consideration, on the aspects mentioned in the judgment. Not satisfied, the petitioner preferred W.A.No. 1407 of 2004. By the judgment of a learned Division Bench dated 23-09-2004, the writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the order of the learned single Judge and the writ petition was dismissed preserving liberty to the petitioner/appellant to submit a reply to the show cause notice dated 09-08-2004 issued by the 1st respondent and granting liberty to the 1st respondent to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. It was however stated that the 1st respondent after passing an order afresh shall not interfere with the possession of the property by the petitioner till the time to prefer an appeal against such order lapses. However, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order declaring the acquisition of title to the property by the petitioner to be in transgression of the provisions of the Act and directing further that the land should be taken into possession of the Government with immediate effect under a panchanama and the particulars of the land should be kept in the Prohibitory Order Book of Malyala village, reserved for public purpose. Sri M. Sudheer Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner makes a singular contention in this writ petition that he does not desire to canvass the merits of the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in this writ petition. It is stated that since the learned Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 23-09-2004 had directed that the 1st respondent should after passing an order afresh should not execute the order by way of interfering with the petitioner’s possession till the time of appeal against that order is over, the 1st respondent has not only passed an order declaring the petitioner’s possession to be illegal but also directed immediate custody of the property by the State contrary to the judgment of this Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the order of the 1st respondent dated 31-03-2006 shall become operative only after fifteen (15) days from today. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue any appellate remedy against the order of the 1st respondent impugned herein. After the said period, the respondents are at liberty to execute the order impugned in this writ petition. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 24-02-2011 Pvks/*