HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.24817 of 2006 Date: 11-11-2011 Between Addanki Ramanaiah and 26 others … Petitioners and The District Collector, Nellore, Nellore Dist., and 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.24817 of 2006 Order: Heard Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 2. This writ petition is filed seeking a direction by way of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in proposing to re- assign the dry lands of the petitioners vide Survey Nos.12/2B15, 12/2B20, 12/2B10, 12/2B11, 12/2B4, 12/2B7, 12/2B19, 12/2B16, 12/2B26, 12/2B13, 12/2B28, 12/2B21, 12/2B9, 12/2B2, 12/2B27 and 12/2B22 for an extent of Ac.27-00 cents situated at Anthapuram village, Totapally Gudur Mandal, Nellore district, to third parties without issuing any notice to the petitioners and without issuing any Land Acquisition proceedings. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioners that they are the owners and possessors of the lands referred above by virtue of the transfer by way of granting assigned pattas. It is their further grievance that though such assignments are in force, without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any notice, the respondents are taking steps to dispossess them from the aforesaid landed property. Thus, they plead that such action on the part of the respondents is violation of rights guaranteed under Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India. 4. The 3rd respondent-Tahsildar (Mandal Revenue Officer), Totapally Gudur Mandal, Nellore district, has filed a Counter-Affidavit. In the Counter-Affidavit, while admitting grant of assignment of lands in favour of the petitioners by issuing ‘D’ Form Patta to an extent of Ac.1-00 cts., each, it is alleged that the petitioners have violated the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “the Act”) by selling the said lands to a landlady, by name Smt. D.Seethamma, by executing a registered sale deed vide Document No.23/1996, dated 24-01-1996. It is further stated that in view of the said transfer, the respondents have taken steps under the provisions of the Act and the said lands were resumed. It is also stated that thereafter, the lands were re-assigned to third-party beneficiaries. 5. The eviction/resumption orders passed under the provisions of the Act are not under challenge in this writ petition. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed under the aforesaid Act, it is open for them to take steps to question the said orders but without questioning said orders, when the respondents have stated that the lands in question were already resumed and allotted to third-parties, no relief can be granted in this writ petition as prayed for. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition, permitting the petitioners to question the orders of eviction before the competent authorities if they are so aggrieved. Further, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo as on today with regard to the possession of the said lands for a period of 2 (two) months from today. 7. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 11th November, 2011. Note:- Issue C.C. in one week. (B/o) Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.24817 of 2006 11th November, 2011. (Ak)