THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1195 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner states that she purchased an extent of Acs.10.78 cents of land in various survey numbers of Vankayalapadu Village, Edlapadu Mandal, Guntur District in 1995 and 1996. Alleging that the said land was assigned to the petitioner and that she has alienated the same in favour of third parties in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, proceedings were initiated against her by the Tahsildar, Edlapadu Mandal, respondent No.4 herein, by issuing notice. The petitioner submitted her explanation, denying the allegations. She asserted that the land was not at all assigned to her and that she purchased the same from private landholders. Through an order, dated 30.07.2007, respondent No.4 directed resumption of land to the Government by evicting the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaropet, respondent No.3 herein. It is stated that respondent No.3 heard the stay petition and in the meanwhile, respondent No.4 is trying to take possession for handing over the same to respondent No.5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The grievance of the petitioner is about the alleged attempts made by respondent No.4 to dispossess her from the land referred to above. Though the subject matter of the writ petition is limited, on a perusal of the order, dated 30.07.2007, passed by respondent No.4, it is felt that the validity thereof needs to be considered here itself, so that the litigation is minimised. A perusal of the order of resumption passed by respondent No.4 discloses that he just filled up the blanks and directed resumption of the land. Show cause notice as well as the order of resumption are silent as to the date of assignment in favour of the petitioner. In her explanation, the petitioner categorically stated that she purchased the land and it was never assigned to her. Therefore, respondent No.4 was under obligation to consider this aspect and arrive at a conclusion. It is only when specific findings are recorded as to the date of assignment in favour of the petitioner and alienation in contravention of the conditions of assignment that the resumption could have been ordered. Respondent No.4 does not dispute that the petitioner submitted explanation. The manner in which the explanation was considered is reflected in a small sentence, which reads “the reply was total negation of the facts as available on record and enquiry”. When valuable rights of citizens are involved and the petitioner is sought to be evicted, respondent No.4 was required to be objective and clear in his findings. The order suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and failure to record reasons. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 30.07.2007, passed by respondent No.4 is set aside. As a result, the appeal preferred before respondent No.3 shall abate. Respondent No.4 shall hear the matter afresh by giving opportunity to the petitioner and pass a detailed order recording specific findings as to the manner and particulars of assignment and the alleged alienation in contravention of the terms of assignment. The petitioner shall remain in possession and enjoyment of the land till such exercise is completed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:28.01.2010 jsu THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1195 of 2010 Date: 28.01.2010 jsu