IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.11377 of 2000 Between: Gunda Venkatrajam S/o. Ramalingam R/o. Gollapalli Village, H/o. Dharmaraopet Ghanpur (M), Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ghanpur (Mulug), Warangal District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mulug, Warangal District. 3 Mittapalli Komuraiah S/o. Rajaiah R/o. Gollapalli Village, Ghanpur (M) Mandal, Warangal 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the Order in Proceedings No.H/K/271/94 dt.7-9-97 passed by the 2nd Respondent is highly arbitrary, bad and illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and pass such other or order or orders as deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3:C.A.R.SESHAGIRI RAO The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.11377 of 2000 ORDER: Petitioner seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned order in proceedings No.H/K/271/94, dated 07-08-1997, by setting aside the order of the 1st respondent in proceedings No,, dated 14-12-1993, as illegal and arbitrary. The 1st respondent passed an order in proceedings No.B/2311/93, dated 14-12-1993, regularizing purchase of the assigned land in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2-15 cents in Sy.No.672/3 situated at Dharmaraopet Village, Mulug Mandal, Warangal District, under Sub-Section (5) of Section 3 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “the Act”). Aggrieved by the same, the 3rd respondent filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent through impugned order, dated 07-08-1997, allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the 1st respondent, dated 14-12-1993. It is the case of the petitioner that the land admeasuring Ac.2-15 gts. in Sy.No.672/3 situated at Dharmaraopet Village, Mulug Mandal, Warangal District, was assigned in favour of the 3rd respondent long back. The 3rd respondent sold the said land in his favour and accordingly, the petitioner filed an application before the 1st respondent to regularize purchase of the said land in his favour under Sub-Section (5) of Section 3 of the Act, on the ground that he is also a landless poor and the land, which is assigned in favour of landless poor purchased by another landless poor prior to the commencement of the Act, can be regularized. Accordingly, 1st respondent regularized purchase of the said land in his favour through order, dated 14- 12-1993, Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that he never sold the land in question in favour of the petitioner and he has been continuously cultivating the said land and his name was also found in the pahani patrikas from 1965-66 to 1991-92. After verifying the revenue records, the 2nd respondent allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the 1st respondent on the ground that there was no sale deed and the sale was not proved and the name of the original assignee was found in the pahani patrikas from 1965-66 to 1991-92 and that the original assignee, who is a landless poor, belongs to scheduled caste whereas the petitioner belongs to forward caste. When there is a dispute with regard to the Sale Deed, the 1st respondent ought not to have relied on some documents said to have been filed by the petitioner. According to the 3rd respondent, he has not at all executed any sale deed in favour of the petitioner and in the absence of any admitted fact about alienation of the said land in favour of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that regularization of the said land in favour of the petitioner is illegal and unsustainable. Admittedly, the assigned land is not alienable. However, the only exception of alienation is if the assigned lands allotted in favour of landless poor, purchased by another landless poor, prior to the commencement of the Act, then only such lands can be regularized but not other lands. But, however, in the instant case, there is no such alienation. Therefore, I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 20-02-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ESWAR}