THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 8203 of 2008 O r d e r: Aggrieved by the auction notice dated 10.04.2008, issued by respondent No.4, namely the Mandal Revenue Officer, Puttur Mandal, proposing to conduct auction of the mango fruits grown in the mango garden of the petitioners situated in an extent of Ac. 8-92 cents in Sy. Nos. 63/10 to 14, 16 to 19 and 22 of Puttur village, Puttur Mandal, on 17.04.2008 in his office, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The petitioners claim that they were assigned various extents of land totaling Ac.8-92 cents in Sy. Nos. 63/10 to 14, 16 to 19 and 22 of Puttur village, Puttur Mandal Puttur village, and also issued DKT pattas in respect thereof, and they having been assigned the said lands, raised mango gardens therein and are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioners state that respondent No.4 sought to dispossess them from the land in question on the ground that the same is required for giving house sites under Indiramma Pathakam. And it is their case that when they opposed the said action of respondent No.4, he issued notices dated 23.04.2007 to one Sri. G. Pandurangaiah, to show cause as to how he came into possession of the land in question in violation of the provisions of Section 3(2) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition and Alienation) Act, 1977 and why he should not be evicted therefrom. The petitioners state that they made representations to respondent No.4 stating that it is not Sri. G. Pandurangaiah, but it is they who are in possession of the land in question. However, the petitioners state respondent No.4, issued the impugned auction notice, and it is their case that though they made representations requesting the respondents to stop the auction, no action thereon had been taken. Hence, they filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not violated the provisions assignment, much less the provisions of Section 3(2) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition and Alienation) Act, 1977, and as such, the action of respondent No.4 in issuing the impugned auction notice proposing to sell the fruits grown in their garden is illegal and arbitrary, in that it indirectly sought to dispossess them from the land in question. This Court on 15.04.2008, while ordering notice before admission, granted interim stay of further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned notice. Praying to vacate the said interim order, the respondents filed W.V.M.P. No. 1400 of 2008 along with counter. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue reiterating the counter averments submitted that as the petitioners in violation of the conditions of assignment, alienated the lands in question to one Sri. G. Pandurangaiah, who had merged all the survey sub-divisions and clubbed them into his mango garden, notice was issued to the said Sri. G. Pandurangaiah as also to the petitioners calling upon them to explain as to how Sri. G. Pandurangaiah, came into possession of the said assigned land. As there was no proper response to the said notice, respondent No.4 passed final orders on 11.09.2007, resuming the lands in question to the Government, and considering the fact that the lands in question are in the vicinity of Puttur Municipality, they were proposed for providing house sites under Indiramma Pathakam. Since the lands in question were resumed to the Government, he submitted that respondent No.4 is well within his powers to auction to usufruct of the mango garden, and no exception can be taken thereto. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. Though the petitioners contend that they have not violated the conditions of assignment of the lands in question, it is the specific case of the respondents that the petitioners in contravention of the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition and Alienation) Act, 1977 have alienated the lands in question to one Sri. G. Pandurangaiah, who is said to have clubbed and merged the lands in question into his mango garden. It is also their case that they had issued notices to the petitioners as also Sri. G. Pandurangaiah, calling upon them to explain as to how the said Sri. G. Pandurangaiah, came into possession of the land, and as the petitioners are said to have not submitted proper explanation, respondent No.4 is said to have passed final orders dated 11.09.2007 resuming the lands in question to the Government and also served on the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners have not questioned this order, and have filed this writ petition questioning the auction notice dated 10.04.2008, which in fact, has been issued by respondent No.4 in pursuance of the resumption orders dated 11.09.2007, by reason of which, the lands in question came to be vested in the Government. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the action of respondent No.4 in issuing the impugned notice, proposing to auction the usufruct of the mango garden raised in the lands in question. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. The order, however, does not preclude the petitioners from questioning the resumption orders dated 11.09.2007 passed by respondent No.4, resuming the lands in question to Government. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 20th June, 2008 KSR