IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 8649 of 2008 Between: Smt. Margana Vijaya Gowri W/o.late Sri Ramana Murthy Door No.6-55-70/8 Opp.Old Post office Bheemili Road Tagarapuvalasa Visakhapatnam Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dist Collector Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam Dist 2 The Tahsildar Bheemunipatnam .....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 an appropriate writ,order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declarin the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from an extent of Ac.2- 50 cents of land in S.No.275/2 of Tatiluru( V ) Bheemunipatnam(M) Visakhapatnam Dist being the illegal arbitary and in vioaltion of the procedure prescribed by A.P Assigned Lands (prohibition of Tranfers) Act, 1977 and rules made there-under and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner except by follwoing due procedure prescribed by the said law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.ADINARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 8649 of 2008 Oral Order: Questioning the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land in an extent of Ac.2-50 cents in Survey No. 275/2 situated at Tatiluru village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, without issuing any notice and without following the due process of law, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. When the matter was taken up, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, submitted that out of total extent of Ac.25.75 cents in Survey No. 275/2 of Thatitiru village of Bheemunipatnam Mandal, an extent of Ac.0.98 cents was assigned to one Nalli Durga Rao, and since the said assignee has alienated the land assigned to him in contravention to the provisions of Sub-Section (1) and (2) of the A.P. Assigned Land (POT) Act, 1977, they issued notices in Form-I and II, calling upon the assignee as well as the occupier of the land in question to show cause as to why the assignment granted should not be cancelled and the land assigned should not be resumed to Government after summarily evicting the occupier of the assigned land, and since no explanation has been received either from the original assignee or from the occupier of the land, final orders were passed on 21.11.2007, canceling the assignment and for resumption of the assigned land to the Government, and as the occupier refused to receive the said order, after publishing the said order by means of substitute service, possession of the land was resumed to Government on 26.11.2007 through panchanama. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that they have not been evicted and they are still in possession of the land in question. Since the respondents have already passed final orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner wants to challenge the said proceedings by preferring appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned. In view of the above stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The petitioner is granted four weeks time from today to prefer appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned against the final orders dated 21.11.2007, passed by the 2nd respondent, namely the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by the parties. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 02nd May 2008 KSR/Nsr