THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6318 OF 1998 23rd AUGUST, 2006 BETWEEN Veyyakula Suryanarayana … Petitioner vs The Mandal Revenue Officer, Jami P.O., Vizianagaram District and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6318 OF 1998 ORDER: The petitioner was assigned land admeasuring Acs.0.63 cents comprised in survey Nos.100/5, 100/6 and 108/9 situated at Chintada village for the purpose of agriculture. However, under registered sale deed, 28.08.1997, the petitioner sold/alienated the land to Kilari Appanna. In view of this, the first respondent initiated action under the provisions of A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (the Act, for brevity). In exercise of powers under Section 4 of the Act, the Mandal Revenue Officer passed orders of 03.09.1997 ordering resumption of the land to the Government. The purchaser of the land Appanna filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, which, at the time of filing of writ petition, was pending. In the meanwhile, it appears the first respondent assigned the land to second respondent. Aggrieved by this, present writ petition is filed contending that when the assigned land is resumed for contravention of provisions of the Act, the land has to be restored to the original assignee and that the same cannot be assigned to other persons. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to restore the assigned land to the petitioner. No counter affidavit is filed. However, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) has placed before this Court the statement given by the petitioner before the MRO on 21.08.1997, wherein he stated that he is not interested in taking the land and that the land can be assigned to others. A certified Xerox copy of the statement given by the petitioner is placed on record. In view of the statement given by the petitioner, the first respondent was justified in assigning the land to the second respondent and there is no infirmity in the same. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) 23.08.2006 pln