IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.6275 of 2005 Between: Srisailam and 7 others ..... PETITIONERS AND The Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.6275 of 2005 O R D E R: Heard both the counsel. The petitioners filed this Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar District in issuing the impugned proceedings No.E1(B1)/2852/1998, dated 29.01.2005 in cancelling the assignment patta certificates issued to 19 beneficiaries under Sec.166B of A.P.(Telangana Area) Land Regulation Act, 1317 F (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). By the aforesaid order, various extents of the land assigned to 19 beneficiaries, ranging from Ac.0.38 cents to Ac.3.55 cents was cancelled while ordering restoration of the possession in favour of the protected tenants. It is stated that respondents Nos.3 to 5 are the protected tenants. The total extent of Ac.29.98 cents was situated in Sy.Nos.115, 185, and 186 of Mogiligidda village, Farooqnagar Mandal. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that one of the protected tenants i.e. 3rd respondent has surrendered the land to the landholder and subsequently the landholder surrendered the land under the Land Ceiling Act on 11.06.1981, and thereupon the said land was assigned to the petitioners and others. The petitioners have developed the said land and they are the landless poor. Therefore, the proceedings initiated for cancellation of the assignments are illegal and unsustainable. The undisputed facts are that as per the revenue records, Sy.Nos.115, 185 and 186 of an extent of Ac.29.98 cents situated within the limits of Mogiligidda village was the patta land of Smt.Sukesheni Devi, 3rd respondent herein. The 3rd respondent has been declared as surplus landholder by the Land Reforms Tribunal and she had surrendered the said lands on 11.06.1981. Thereafter, the said land was assigned to 19 beneficiaries by the erstwhile Tahsildar, Shadnagar in File No.B/4557/87 dated 14.12.1987. On the complaint made by the protected patta holders stating that the Tahsildar issued assigned pattas ignoring the rights of the protected tenants, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Farooqnagar submitted proposals under Sec.166B of the Act for cancellation of the assignment, treating it as irregular assignment, as the protected tenants were in possession of the said lands assigned to the 19 beneficiaries. Based on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Farooqnagar, Mahaboobnagar District, show cause notices were issued to all the 19 beneficiaries including the writ petitioners vide Ref.No.B1/2852/98 dated 25.10.1998 calling upon the petitioners and others to explain the reasons as to why the assigned lands should not be cancelled and the said show cause notices were served on the beneficiaries 06.11.1998. Pursuant to the said show cause notices, writ petitioners Nos.3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have submitted their explanation stating that they belong to B.C.community and landless poor and they developed the assigned lands during period of their possession. They also stated that one Budidhi Chennaiah was the protected tenant who died long back and his wife, the 4th respondent Budithi Pentamma was also assigned some portion of the land in Sy.No.185 which was said to have been sold in favour of third parties. The said explanation was considered. Admittedly, the surrendered lands were in possession of the protected tenants and therefore, the protected tenancy rights over the surplus lands would continue under the Tenancy Act. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos.4 and 5 submits that in fact, immediately after cancellation of the assignment, the possession of the lands was also restored to the protected tenants under the cover of Panchanama in File No.B/504/05 dated 31.03.2005. In so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 3rd respondent has already surrendered the lands nearly 40 years back is concerned, I do not see any authenticated document or any proof in support of the said contention. It is not in dispute that respondents Nos.3 to 5 are the protected tenants. If the right of the protected tenants under the Tenancy Act is not disputed, it cannot be said that the said lands are liable to be assigned. Therefore, after giving show cause notices and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners for cancellation of the assignment on the ground that the lands of the protected tenants cannot be assigned as the protected tenancy rights are being continued, it cannot be said that the impugned order is illegal and unsustainable. I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the impugned proceedings. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners have got right of review of the proceedings under Sec.166-C of the Act before the Government. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 10.02.2011 Dsr