IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27860 of 2008 Between: Smt. Dubbaka Ramulamma W/o. Rangaiah R/o. H.No. 18-9-191/1, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Deputy Collector & Tahsildar Hayath Nagar, Ranga Reddy Dist. .....RESPONDENT 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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI and quash the said notices dated 05-12-2008 and 12-12-2008 in Proceedings No.C/2900/2008 issued by Respondent herein both having aimed at evicting the petitioner from the land in an extent of Ac. 8.00 in Sy.No.38/1 of Munguganoor Village of Hayath Nagar Mandal, R.R. District. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI Y.ASHOK RAJ Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27860 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner has allegedly purchased an extent of Acs.8.00 in survey No.38/1 of Munuganoor Village of Hayathnagar Mandal in Ranga Reddy District, from one Narsimha under registered sale deed dated 20.08.1976. Respondent initiated action under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Notices in Form-I and Form-II were issued under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 (the Rules, for brevity). After receiving these notices dated 05.12.2008 and 12.12.2008, petitioner submitted explanation on 16.12.2008. It is now alleged that without passing any order, respondent is trying to dispossess the petitioner, and therefore, the present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A perusal of the material annexed to the writ petition would show that notice in Form-I, dated 05.12.2008, was issued to the petitioner’s vendor – Narsimha, and notice in Form-II was issued to the petitioner as alienee/transferee. Even before the time prescribed in notice in Form-II i.e., fifteen days, expired, the present writ petition is filed. This only shows that the writ petition is misconceived. In the notice in Form- II fifteen days time is fixed. Unless and until fifteen days time expires, no direction can be given to Tahsildar to dispose of the matter. The allegation that there is a threat of dispossession is to be stated only for the purpose of rejection. The Writ Petition is misconceived and the same is dismissed accordingly. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 23.12.2008 vs To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KBJ}