THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 9770 of 2006 Dated 10-03-2011 Between: Smt. N. Lakshmidevamma …Petitioner Vs. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Nandikotkur Mandal, Kurnool District and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 9770 of 2006 Oral Order: The 1st respondent by the order dated 24-06-2005 in purported exercise of powers under the provisions of Section 3 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) directed the petitioner to vacate the extent of Ac.3-00 in survey No. 146/2, Nagatoor village, Nandikotkur Mandal, Kurnool District. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent. By the order dated 26-10-2005, the 2nd respondent concurred with the conclusions and findings of the 1st respondent and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner preferred a revision to the 3rd respondent which was rejected by the order dated 22-04-2006 and hence is this writ petition filed seeking Certiorari of the revisional order confirming the appellate order which in turn confirmed the primary order of the 1st respondent. On the undisputed factual scenario, on 04-10-1971 assignment of Government land was made in favour of one Boya Jambulaiah of the extent of Ac.03-00 of the schedule property. The assignment contains a condition of in-alienability of land and therefore the property is assigned land within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. Under a registered sale deed dated 15-11-1973 Boya Naganna, who succeeded to the property on the death of the original assignee – Boya Jambulaiah conveyed the schedule property to J. Venkata Seshaiah for what is claimed to be valuable consideration. J.Venkataiah Seshaiah gifted the property to the petitioner, his sister, under a registered deed of gift dated 30-04-1987 and since then the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property. The 1st respondent issued a show cause notice dated 09-06-2005 in Form-I under the provisions of the Act calling for the petitioner’s explanation as to why she be not summarily evicted from the land for acquiring the schedule property in transgression of the provisions of the Act. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 22-06- 2005 claiming that her brother purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 15-11-1973 from Boya Naganna, son of the original assignee and that her brother gifted the property under a registered instrument dated 30-04-1987. This explanation does not plead expressly or by any implication that J. Venkata Seshaiah, the vendee under the registered sale deed dated 15-11- 1973 was a landless poor person. That J. Venkata Seshaiah was a landless poor person as on the date of purchase of the land is pleaded for the first time only in the writ petition. Be that as it may. As already adverted to above, the primary, appellate and revisional authorities concurred that the property in the hands of the petitioner is qua transactions prohibited by the provisions of the Act, findings which are impeccable and warrant no interference in judicial review. On the aforesaid premise, no case is made out for interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 10-03-2011 Pvks