IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6541 of 2008 Between: Kannasani Padmaja W/o. P. Sankaranarayana Rao R/o. Koppolu Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District. 4 The Tahsildar, Ongole, Prakasam District. .....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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in insisting the petitioner to vacate from her lands of Ac.3.45 cents, Ac. 1.33 cents and Ac.2.69 1/2 cents respectively covered by Survey Numbers 463/1, 464/1A and 464/1B of Koppolu Revenu Village as cited in and pursuant to notices in Rc.No.56/08 Dt. 29.02.2008 issued by the 4th respondent as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands [Prohibition of Transfers] Act, 1977 and the rules frames there under and offends articles 14, 21 and 300A of Consitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from her lands and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 6541 of 2008 Order: Responding to the notice dated 29.02.2008, issued by the 4th respondent, namely the Tahsildar, Ongole, Prakasam District, in Form- 2, under Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Alienations) Rules, 2007, the petitioner states that she submitted her explanation on 11.03.2008 and it is her grievance that without considering her explanation and without passing any final orders thereon, the respondents are trying to interfere with her possession and dispossess her from the land in question. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, and both of them agreed for disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: The 4th respondent, namely the Tahsildar, Ongole, Prakasam District, is at liberty to pass final orders on the explanation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law, if not already passed. Till then, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the land in question. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 27.03.2008 Ksr/Nsr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}