IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ONE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 9559 of 2001 Between: 1 R. Laxminarsaiah (Died) S/o R. Satyam R/o Bhaktapotana Street, Khammam, Khammam District. 2 R. Swathi Kumar S/o Late Laxminarsaiah R/o 2-5-102, Bhaktapotana Street, Khammam District. Petitioner2 is brought on record as LR's of the deceased petitioner as per Court Order in WPMP 32790/01 dt. 23-1-02. 3 Smt. M. Nirmala W/o Rajeswar R/o 2-5-102, Bhaktapotana Street, Khammam District. Petitioner3 is brought on record as LR's of the deceased petitioner as per Court Order in WPMP 32790/01 dt. 23-1-02. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector Khammam. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, Khammam Urban (M), Khammam. .....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 issue writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents and their staﬀ in trying to dispossess the petitioner from his land admeasuring Ac. 1-00 in Sy.No.94 situated at Khanapuram Haveli of Khammam Urban (M) Khammam District, without notice, and without initiating any proceedings as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Art.300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the said land and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.9559 of 2001 O R D E R: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from his land admesuring Ac.1-00 in Survey No.94 situated at Khanapuram Haveli of Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District without notice and, without initiating any proceedings, as arbitrary and illegal and in violation of Article 300A of Constitution of India. The petitioner seeks a consequential direction to the respondents not to dispossess him from the said land. During the pendency of the writ petition, the sole petitioner died and his legal representatives 2 and 3 ie., his son and daughter were brought on record as his legal representatives. The case of the petitioner in short is that the land alienated to the petitioner was sought to be resumed on the ground that earlier the land had been assigned in favour of others. Sri K.Pavan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K.Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that while the petitioners had conceded, in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, that the said resumption was without notice to them, the respondents, in their counter-aﬃdavit, had stated that, since the petitioner had refused to accept the notice, it was served by aﬃxture. Learned counsel would submit that, since the petitioners are entitled to have the beneﬁt of Section 3(5) of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition) Act, 1977, it would suﬃce if they are given an opportunity to prefer an appeal under Section 4-A against the order of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer dated 28.3.2001 seeking to resume the lands alienated in favour of the petitioner. It is necessary to note that the present writ petition was admitted on 14.5.2001 ie less than two months after the order of resumption dated 28.3.2001. Under Section 4-A of the Act, a person who is aggrieved by an order of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer has the right to prefer an appeal against the said order within 90 days of receipt of the same. In view of the pendency of proceedings before this Court, it is but appropriate, that the petitioners are given the liberty to avail the remedy of an appeal under Section 4-A of the Act, which, if ﬁled within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, shall be entertained and decided on merits by the appellate authority. Subject to the above, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 5th November, 2008. PNV