IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 9874 of 2001 Between: Ahmed S/o Mohammed Rep by Real Brother and G.P.A. Asad Bin Mohd, S/o Mohd., Age: 30 Years Occ: Business, R/o 3-4-41/A, Opp: Darga Fathe Khan Saheb, Sanga Reddy District, Medak. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Th District Collector, Medak, O/o Sanga Reddy, Medak District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Sanga Reddy, Medak District. 3 The S.P.H. (Rural), Sanga Reddy Police Station O/o Sanga Reddy, Medak District. .....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 issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or Direction, declaring the action of the respondents in Pursuance to impugned Memo No.Lr.No.D/1176/99 dt: 3.4.2001 directing to evict the petitioner from the agricultural land measuring 8 gunts total admeasuring 12 gunts in Sy.No.49/2 and Sy.No.49/4, respectively, situated at pothreddypally Village, Sanga Reddy Mandal and Taluqu, Medak District as illegal, improper, un-constitutional, arbitrary ultravires, and violative of Article 300-A and fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and also in violative of Principles of natural justice and fair play and to grantsuch other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.ALI FAROOQUE Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: The Petitioner challenges the action of the respondent-authorities in seeking to implement the Memo bearing letter No.D/1176/99 dated 3-4-2001, by evicting the Petitioner from the agricultural land measuring 12 guntas in S.Nos.49/2 and 49/4 situated at Pothreddypally village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District. 2. The Petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the said land having purchased the same under a registered sale deed bearing document No.2913/91 dated 16-9-1991. He also claims to have obtained necessary certiﬁcation of his ownership and possession over the said property under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. 3. It is his case that he came to know prior to the ﬁling of the Writ Petition that the Respondent- authorities were intending to handover an extent of land admeasuring Ac.4.00 to the A.P. Housing Board and that his land admeasuring 12 guntas was also part of the land identified. He also came to know upon veriﬁcation, that the impugned memo dated 3-4-2001 had been issued directing the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Sangareddy to handover the land by conducting panchanama. 4. His grievance is that the respondent- authorities had nothing to do with his land and without following the due process of law, they could not be permitted to interfere with his possession and title over the said land. 5. By order dated 16-5-2001, this Court granted interim suspension of the impugned memo including all further proceedings pursuant thereto. 6. A Counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the District Collector, Medak stating that the land in S.No.49 of Pothreddypally village of Sangareddy was originally Government land. Out of the entire extent of Ac.68.21 guntas available in Survey No.49 of Pothreddypally village, certain extents were assigned to the landless poor of the village between the years 1964 and 1987. It is alleged that some of the beneﬁciaries alienated the land assigned to them in violation of the conditions of assignment and accordingly, steps were initiated for resuming the possession of such land. Out of the Ac.14.07 guntas of land which was so resumed, it was proposed to alienate an extent of Ac.4.00 to the A.P. Housing Board. It is stated that the land purchased by the Petitioner was also covered by the resumption orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Sangareddy on 3- 4-1999. Consequently, under the Memo dated 3-4-2001, the Mandal Revenue Inspector was directed to handover the government land in S.No.49 to the diﬀerent departments identiﬁed and approved for allotment through alienation. 7. The pleadings extracted above clearly demonstrate that there is a dispute with regard to the title and possession of the petitioner over the extent of 12 guntas purchased by him. However, this disputed question of fact need not trouble the Court in this case in the light of the proceedings bearing No.B/13426/2007-6 dated 23-10-2007 issued by the Tahsildar, Sangareddy. 8. In the said proceedings, the Tahsildar (formerly Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer) Sangareddy Mandal referred to the ﬁnding of the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Sangareddy that the assignment of the land in favour of the petitioner’s predecessors-in-title was prior to the year 1954 and accordingly, the condition prohibiting the alienation of the assigned land does not get attracted. Reference was also made to the order dated 9-8-2001 passed by this Court in W.P.No.33835 of 1997 holding that there was no condition of non-alienability stipulated in respect of the land assigned prior to the issuance of G.O.No.1406 Revenue Department dated 25-7-1958 and accordingly, the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 did not apply. Taking note of the above stated aspects, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Sangareddy appears to have passed an order canceling the resumption orders dated 3-4-1999 in respect of the lands assigned to the petitioner’s predecessors-in-title. In consequence thereof, the Tahsildar, Sangareddy Mandal by way of the proceedings dated 23-10-2007 ordered transfer of the patta in the name of the purchaser from the original assignee who was held to be at liberty to sell the land. The proceedings dated 23-10-2007 record the name of the petitioner as the purchaser in respect of the lands admeasuring Ac.0.08 guntas and Ac.0.04 guntas in S.Nos.49/2 and 49/4 respectively. The Village Revenue Oﬃcer, Pothireddypally was also directed to make necessary changes in the Revenue Records. 9. In the light of the proceedings dated 23-10- 2007, it is clear that the issue raised for adjudication in this Writ Petition does not survive and the matter has been given a quietus by the authorities themselves, as evidenced by the proceedings dated 23-10-2007. No further orders are required in this Writ Petition. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ Justice P.V.SANJAY KUMAR Dated 3rd November, 2008. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.9874 OF 2001 Dated 3rd November, 2008