IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.17790 of 2008 Between: 1 Miriyam Chandraiah S/o.Yellamanda R/o. Avaladoddi Gollapalem Village, Pedaganjam post, Chinnaganjam Mandal, Prakasam District. 2 Smt.Miriyam Suseela W/o.venkateswarlu R/o. Avaladoddi Gollapalem Village, Pedaganjam post, Chinnaganjam Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Tahsildar, Chinaganjam Mandal, Prakasam District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam 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 may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order dated 5.11.2007 in Proceedings in Rc.No.B.106/2007, 4, 5 of the 1st respondent, and the consequential proceedings thereon as being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the same with a direction not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands situate in S.Nos.1046/4, 1047/1 and 1060/2 of Pedaganjam Village to an extent of Ac.0-89 cents each, and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MRS.A.VARALAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.17790 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents. 2. This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the order, dated 05.11.2007, in Rc.No.B.106/2007, 4, 5, issued by the 1st respondent- Tahsildar, Chinnaganjam Mandal, Prakasam, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the land to an extent of Ac.0-89 cents each in Sy.Nos.1046/4, 1047/1 and 1060/2 of Pedaganjam village, Chinnaganjam Mandal of Prakasam District. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they purchased lands to an extent of Ac.0-89 cents each in Sy.Nos.1046/4, 1047/1 and 1060/2 of Pedaganjam village, Chinnaganjam Mandal of Prakasam District, through registered sale deeds dated 22.11.2006, from one M.Nagendra Rao and have been continuing in possession of the said lands ever since the date of purchase. While so, the 1st respondent- Tahsildar, Chinnaganjam Mandal, Prakasam, issued a show cause notice to them, under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’), asking them to show cause as to why they should not be evicted from the said lands since the said lands are assigned lands and they purchased the same in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Pursuant to the said notice, the 1st petitioner appeared before the 1st respondent and brought to his notice that the lands are not assigned lands and that their vendor M.Nagendra Rao purchased the same from his vendor A. Subba Rao even prior to the commencement of the Act and, therefore, the provisions of the Act do not apply to their lands. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 1st respondent, without considering the explanation oﬀered by the 1st petitioner, has issued the impugned order, dated 05.11.2007, resuming the lands in question in favour of the Government and directing the Mandal Revenue Inspector/Additional Revenue Inspector, Chinaganjam, to take physical possession of the lands in question and show them as “Assessed Waste Dry” in the village records. Thereafter, an urgent notice was also issued on 26.05.2008 asking the petitioners to be present at the lands in question on 02.06.2008 for handing over the possession to the original assignee, but however, according to the petitioners, the respondents did not turn up on the said date and the petitioners are in continuing in possession of the lands in question. 4. Admittedly, against the impugned order, dated 05.11.2007, an appeal lies to the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Ongole. But, the petitioners, without availing the said eﬀective alternative remedy of appeal, have directly approached this Court. 5. In the circumstances, without going into the merits, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioners to ﬁle an appeal, against the impugned order, before the 2nd respondent – Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Ongole, along with an application seeking stay/suspension of the impugned order, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such appeal, till orders are passed by the 2nd respondent on the stay/suspension application, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by the parties. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ____________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 14th August, 2008 IBL