IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 4242 of 2008 Between: Vizag Defence Academy Educational Society, Marripalem rep. by its Director, Flight Lieutenant (R) V. Ganesh Kumar, 104 Area, Marripalem Main Road, Visakhapatnam –530007. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Vizianagaram 2 The Revenue Divisional officer, Vizianagaram 3 The Tahsildar, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District ...RESPONDENTS 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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the order of the 2nd respondent passed in L.Dis.No.178/08A dated 18.2.2008 signed on 21.2.2008 confirming the order of the 3rd respondent passed in Rc.No.722/2007 dated 24.12.2007 as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of principles of natural justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. R.A.CHARY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner questions the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram passed in L.Dis.No.178/08A dated 18.02.2008 in dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the Tahsildar, Kothavalasa dated 24.12.2007 in Rc.No.722/2007. 2. The Tahsildar by the aforesaid order resumed the land of an extent of Ac.16.68 cents purchased by the petitioner – Vizag Defence Academy Educational Society in 2005 on the ground that the said lands are assigned lands vide Darkhast Nos.24 to 41 of 1400 fasli in favour of Petla Errayya and 22 others and as per the terms and conditions of the assignment the said lands are not alienable nut only inheritable. Therefore, the purchase of the said lands by the petitioner is in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer taking various grounds and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal in one sentence stating that since the said lands are Government lands and the transfer by way of Registered Sale Deed, it is clear violation of the Act; hence, the appeal is rejected. 3. Admittedly, against the said order a further remedy of revision lies under Section 4-B of the Act before the Joint Collector. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to give an opportunity to the petitioner to avail the right of revision. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is permitted to file a revision before the Joint Collector, Vizianagaram/first respondent within one week from today and pending disposal of the revision, if any filed within one week from today, status quo obtaining as on today with regard to possession shall be maintained. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J February 28, 2008 DSK