THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.6189 of 2010 Date:24th January, 2011 Between: Pokala Mallesham S/o.Veeraiah R/o.Velichala (V), Ramadugu Mandal, Karimnagar District. ….Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Tahsildar, Karimnagar and others. ….Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.6189 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been taken out by Pokala Mallesham for issue of a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to resumption of land in Survey No.334 admeasuring Ac.5.24 guntas situated at Malkapur Village, Karimnagar District, in File No.B1/4574/2008, dated 15.01.2009, and to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The petitioner is resident of Velichala village, Ramadugu Mandal, Karimnagar District. Presently, he is residing at Putturu village, Illanthakunta Mandal, Karimangar. He purchased Ac.5.34 guntas of land in Sy.No.334 situated at Malkapur village of Karimnagar Mandal under a registered sale deed, dated 13.2.1989. He dug an open well and obtained electricity connection and laid pipeline and thereby developed the land. He has been raising wet crop, such as paddy in the land. Whileso, the Tahsildar, Karimnagar–1st respondent insisted the petitioner to vacate the land on the ground that the land is an assigned land and the same has been resumed for contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, (for short, ‘the Act’). The petitioner claims that he is landless poor person and his purchase of the land is not hit by the provisions of the Act. He approached the 1st respondent and obtained copy of the resumption order passed in File No.B1/4574/2008, dated 15.01.2009. He has not been put on notice before order of resumption passed by the 1st respondent. Therefore, the order passed by the 1st respondent is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Hence, this Writ Petition seeking the relief stated supra. 3. The respondents filed counter-affidavit. P.Srihari Reddy has sworn to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the sale in favour of the petitioner is in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The petitioner has not been staying in Malkapur village and his whereabouts are not known. Service of notice on the petitioner before passing order of resumption is in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Rule 3 of the Rules i.e., duly affixing the notice on the notice board of Gram Panchayat, Malkapur, as the petitioner is not resident of Malkapur and his whereabouts are not known. The land is resumed to Government duly canceling the assignment for providing house sites to the weaker sections under INDIRAMMA Scheme. The possession of the land has been taken over into Government custody in February, 2009. 4. On 30th August, 2010, the 1st respondent has been directed to place on record the panchanama, in whose presence the affixture of notice on the notice board of the Gram Panchayat has been effected. 5. In pursuance of the direction, the learned Government Pleader produced the record maintained by the respondents for perusal. The file contains Notice in Form II issued under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 1977. The Notice contains the endorsement to the effect that the petitioner viz., Pokala Mallesham is not residing in the village and therefore, copy of the notice has been affixed in the Notice Board of the Gram Panchayat. Endorsement is scribed by V.R.O., Malkapur village. The file also contains the panchnama under which possession has been taken over by the government pursuant to the order passed in File No.B1/4574/2008, dated 05.02.2009. Panchas for the panchanama are Kasarapu Rangaiah, Panduga Lakshmipathi and Gambeeraopeta Bhumaiah. The material brought on record indicates that Form II Notice addressed to the writ petitioner has been affixed to the Notice Board of the Gram Panchayat, since he has not been residing in the village. It is also evident from the record that the possession of the land has been taken over into Government custody on 05.02.2009 pursuant to the order dated 15.01.2009 passed in File No.B1/4574/08. The contention of the petitioner that the land has been resumed without putting him on notice has no merit. Since the petitioner has alternative remedy of appeal as provided under Section 4-A of the Act, he is at liberty to pursue the said remedy. 6. In the result, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and it is hereby dismissed reserving liberty to the writ petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal as provided under Section 4-A of the Act. No costs. _______________________ B.SESHASAYAN REDDY, J. Date:24th January, 2011. Rar/cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.6189 of 2010 Date:24th January, 2011