ORDER : Challa Gunaranjan, J. The present writ petition is filed to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the lands in Survey Nos.169/4 and 169/5 admeasuring Ac.2.25 cents and Ac.2.18 cents, respectively, of Putlampalli Village, Kadapa Mandal, Kadapa District, pending revision before the District Collector, Kadapa, which was instituted by the petitioner on 10.10.2008. 2. The petitioner was assigned an extent of Ac.2.25 cents and an extent of Ac.2.18 cents in Survey Nos.169/4 and 169/5, respectively, of Putlampalli Village, Kadapa Mandal, by way of assignment, dated 31.12.1973. The petitioner though initially cultivated the lands assigned to her, as the vicinity gradually acquired the character of an industrial area and in and around various industries have come up over a period of time, she had made an application for permission to set up a small industry for the manufacture of fly ash bricks and after securing electricity power connection, she started running the same. At that stage, when the respondents tried to interfere with her business activity, she was constrained to file W.P.No.742 of 2007 seeking direction to the respondents not to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject land. During the hearing of the said writ petition, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner had already been issued a show-cause notice, dated 25.10.2006, for resumption of the assignment, but the notice had not been served, as it was refused. After hearing the case, this Court had disposed of the writ petition by order, dated 25.01.2007, giving liberty to the petitioner to submit her explanation against the show-cause notice, and till the enquiry is concluded, the respondents were directed not to disturb the petitioner’s possession. Later, the Tahsildar, Kadapa, abruptly concluded the proceedings without giving the petitioner proper opportunity and passed final order, dated 11.05.2007, ordering the resumption of the lands. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, and also sought interim stay of the resumption order. Pending the same, as the respondents tried to dispossess the petitioner, she filed W.P. No.23498 of 2007 seeking direction to the respondents not to dispossess her till the appeal is decided by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, on merits. Pending the same, as the respondents tried to dispossess the petitioner, she filed W.P. No.23498 of 2007 seeking direction to the respondents not to dispossess her till the appeal is decided by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, on merits. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by order, dated 06.11.2007, directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner and to maintain the status quo ante i.e., from the date of order of resumption till the appeal is decided. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, ultimately, dismissed the appeal by order, dated 10.09.2008, against which, further revision is stated to be preferred on 10.10.2008 before the District Collector, Kadapa. While the revision was pending, as the respondents once again tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner, she was constrained to file the present writ petition. 3. This Court, by order, dated 11.04.2008, directed the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land and the order is still subsisting. 4. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner Nagireddy Sarojini Devi died and her legal representative Mr.N. Maheswar Reddy is added as 2nd petitioner, as per order, dated 29.02.2012. 5. Heard Sri G.Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1, 3 and 4. 6. Sri G.Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the revision preferred before the District Collector, Kadapa, on 10.10.2008, is still pending and no final orders are passed. Though order of resumption was passed and the same was confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, by order, dated 10.09.2008, as the same is in challenge before the revisional authority – District Collector, Kadapa, and all through the 1st petitioner has been protected by directing the respondents not to dispossess her till the disposal of the substantive proceedings, he prays that the Court to continue the interim order passed by this Court till the District Collector, Kadapa, disposes the revision. He would further state that as the assignment was granted on 31.12.1973, and that, in view of the amendment made to Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, “the Act, 1977”), assignments made in favour of respective beneficiaries upon completion of 20 years have been made free-hold and are given absolute rights including the disposable rights, the petitioner entitled for the said benefit and order of resumption as well as the appellate order deserves to be set aside. Besides, he also contended that as the lands which were assigned in favour of the 1st petitioner are surrounded by industrial activity, and it has ceased the original character of having agricultural operations and also that the same has been declared as industrial zone, the petitioners cannot be insisted to undertake the activity for which the assignment was made and he would place reliance on the judgment of this Court in Bandi Jayachandra Reddy v. District Collector, Chittoor District, 2013 (1) ALD 115 . 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 contends that as 1st petitioner violated the conditions of grant by changing the nature of use, the land has already been resumed by the Tahsildar, Kadapa, after conducting proper enquiry and such resumption has been confirmed in appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any indulgence by this Court. However, the learned Assistant Government Pleader would state that the revision pending before the District Collector, Kadapa, would be disposed of expeditiously and that the revisional authority would consider the merits of the matter. 8. Perused the record and considered rival submissions. 9. The limited grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that, while pending the revision before the District Collector, Kadapa, the respondents would not have interfered with their possession and enjoyment over the subject lands. Admittedly, the revision preferred by the 1st petitioner challenging the order of resumption as confirmed in appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, is the subject matter, which is pending consideration before the District Collector, Kadapa. Admittedly, the revision preferred by the 1st petitioner challenging the order of resumption as confirmed in appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, is the subject matter, which is pending consideration before the District Collector, Kadapa. After the order of resumption, dated 11.05.2007, the 1st petitioner’s possession and enjoyment was protected by way of final orders in W.P.No.23498 of 2007, pending appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, and an interim order, dated 04.11.2008, in the present writ petition, has been in force pending the revision before the District Collector, Kadapa, till date. Though the petitioners have contended that in view of change in the statutory scheme of the Act, 1977, the 1st petitioner would acquire absolute rights over the assigned lands, besides that, in view of change in the nature of activity in the vicinity of the area where the petitioners land is situated and that the entire area has already been notified as industrial zone, the respondents cannot compel the petitioners to continue with agricultural activity, this Court does not wish to go into the merits of the matter testing the order of resumption and also the order passed in appeal. However, suffice it to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to the revisional authority i.e., the District Collector, Kadapa, to dispose of the revision on merits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The revisional authority shall also consider the applicability or effect of the amendment made to the Act, 1977, while deciding the revision. The petitioners are also at liberty to raise all contentions including those which are canvassed in this writ petition before the revisional authority and the revisional authority shall consider the same in accordance with law. 10. As the respondents were already directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property pending writ petition, this direction shall continue till the revision is disposed of by the District Collector, Kadapa. 11. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.