IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.18270 of 2008 Between: 1 Narisetti Prameela Devi W/o. Vinayaka Rao 303, Pattabhi Paradise, Guntur 2 Narisetti Suresh Chandra S/o. Vinayaka Rao R/o. Austin-Texas, USA 3 Tamatam Sailaja Rani W/o. Sankara Rao (Petitioner No. 2 and 3 are represented by their GPA, N.Prameela Devi W/o. Vinayaka Rao, aged 56 ys, R/o. Syamalanagar, 2nd Lane, 303, Pattabhi Paradise, Guntur. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Prl. Secretary Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Guntur District, Guntur 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. 4 The Tahasildar, Edlapadu Mandal, Guntur 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 pass order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings dt. 2-3-2007 issued by 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and opposed to law and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.HANUMANTHA RAO VELLALACHERVU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.18270 OF 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled questioning the notices, dated 02.03.2007, issued by the 4th respondent- Tahsildar, Edlapadu Mandal of Guntur District, under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007. It is the case of the petitioners that they have jointly purchased land to a total extent of Ac.18-74 cents in Sy.Nos.383/B1, 382/C3, 383/E and 383/F situated at Chengijkhanpet H/o Kondaveedu Village, Edlapadu Mandal of Guntur District, under an agreement of sale dated 27.08.1987. Pursuant to the agreement of sale, when the vendors did not come forward for registration of the said land, they ﬁled a suit for speciﬁc performance in O.S.No.280 of 1990 on the ﬁle of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, which was decreed. Thereafter, the land was registered by the Court in favour of the petitioners on 26.8.2006, and since then they have been in continuous possession of their respective extents of the land. While so, the 4th respondent- Tahsildar, Edlapadu Mandal of Guntur District, issued notices, dated 02.03.2007, under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007, to the petitioners stating that the said land is an assigned land and the same was transferred in their favour in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’), and they were asked to show cause as to why they should not be evicted from the said land. Pursuant to the said notices, the 1st petitioner submitted a representation to the 4th respondent stating that the provisions of the Act do not apply to the land in question, as the same was originally Government Poramboke land classiﬁed as ‘Assessed Waste’ and the same has been granted to one Dharnasi Ramulu, Perikalla Hanumaiah, Vipparla Ramaiah and Davala Peraiah of Kondaveedu Village, prior to 1942 i.e. even prior to commencement of the Act, and also narrated the manner in which the petitioners came into possession of the said land. Pursuant to the said representation, the 4th respondent submitted a report to the 3rd respondent – Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Narasaraopet, on 09.4.2007, categorically stating that the land in question was classiﬁed as ‘Assessed Waste’ in the village records and the same was granted to the original assignees prior to 1942. Therefore, the petitioners seek to set aside the impugned notices issued by the 4th respondent as arbitrary and illegal. When the writ petition has come up for hearing on 22.08.2008, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this Court in similar fact situation in W.P.No.15078 of 2008 agreed to similar contention as is raised in this writ petition, and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents sought time to get instructions. However, even today, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue is unable to justify the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned notices. A perusal of the report dated 09.04.2007 of the 4th respondent- Tahsildar, Edlapadu Mandal of Guntur District, indicates that the land in question was classiﬁed in the village records as ‘Assessed Waste’ and the same was granted to one Dharnasi Ramulu, Perikalla Hanumaiah, Vipparla Ramaiah and Davala Peraiah of Kondaveedu village, prior to 1942 and relevant entries have been made in the village records. Therefore, it is clear that the land in question was assigned in the year 1942 itself and as such the Act has no application to the lands in question. That apart, the land was registered by the Civil Court by way of decree in the suit ﬁled by the petitioners. For the foregoing reasons, it cannot be said that the subject matter of lands are assigned lands as stated in the impugned show cause notices dated 02.03.2007, and, therefore, the impugned show cause notices are liable to be set aside and are, accordingly, set aside. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA,J 29th August, 2008 MSV/IBL