THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.18326 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.E1/504/03 dated 1.5.2005 of the first respondent confirming the orders of the second respondent in Case No.D/459/02 dated 25.10.2002 and proceedings of the third respondent in No.B/645/1-7/00 dated 20.10.2000 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently declare that the respondents have no authority to resume the land after lapse of long period. According to the petitioner, he has purchased land to an extent of Ac.5-09 guntas in Sy.Nos.139, ,140 of Tolkatta village, Moinabad mandal, Ranga Reddy district from Samala Sudershan Reddy vide registered document No.2559/95 dated 8.12.1995, who in turn purchased the same from the original assignees namely T.Yadaiah and T.Venkaiah under registered sale deeds bearing Doc.Nos.774, 775 dated 27.7.1977. The original assignees were in possession of the subject land in pursuance of the assignment made prior to 1954. According to the petitioner, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land from the date of purchase i.e. on 8.12.1995 till date. However, without issuing any notice and without conducting any enquiry, third respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer passed orders dated 20.10.2000 for resuming the subject land to the Government on the ground that unauthorized persons are in possession of the land and that the said land being assigned land, the same could not have been sold by the original assignees. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed appeal before the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer and the second respondent however, dismissed the same on 25.10.2002. Further aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed revision before the first respondent-Joint Collector. The first respondent, dismissed the said revision vide order dated 1.5.2005 confirming the order passed by the primary authority. Hence this writ petition. The learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that initially the subject land was allotted to vendor’s vendor prior to 1950, therefore, the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘Act 9/77’) has no application to the case on hand and this fact was not taken into consideration by the respondents though the petitioner asserted that the assignment made in favour of his vendor’s vendor prior to 1950. Neither in the impugned order, it is asserted that the assignment was not made prior to 1950 nor it is asserted that the assignment is made on a particular date. Therefore, it cannot be said that the provisions of Act 9/77 are applicable to the present case. I am in full agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner. The learned counsel further relied upon the judgment in A.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD EMPLOYEES UNION, CHITTOOR DISTRICT v. JOINT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR[1] and drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph 15 of the said judgment, which reads as under: “I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, since, admittedly, the condition that the land assigned shall not be alienable was not in force in the year 1933 when the assignment was made in favour of K.Obulappa. Nothing has been placed before this Court to show that the Order promulgated in G.O.Ms.No.1142 dated 18.4.1954 has retrospective application, muchless any material is produced to show that the ‘D-form patta’ granted in favour of K.Obulappa contained such a condition. As a matter of fact, even the impugned order dated 12.6.1998 did not reflect that the second respondent had taken any steps to verify as to whether the assignment granted to K.Obulappa in the year 1933 contained any such condition prohibiting alienation. Hence, the impugned order of cancellation of assignment is vitiated by non-application of mind to the relevant aspects and liable to be set aside on that ground alone”. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that unless the date of original assignment and D-form patta issued in favour of original assignee are taken into consideration as part of evidence, it cannot be said that the provisions of Act 9/1977 are applicable. Therefore, the order passed by the primary authority-third respondent dated 20.10.2000 as confirmed by the second respondent vide order dated 25.10.2002 and further confirmed by the first respondent vide order dated 1.5.2005 are liable to be set aside and are accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the primary authority-third respondent for fresh adjudication and the petitioner shall be given opportunity to lead evidence, if any required. Till the disposal of the matter by the third respondent, status quo as on today shall be maintained. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 31.12.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.18326 of 2005 31.12.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.18326 of 2005 Date: 31st December, 2010 Between: Azeemuddin Khan .. Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district and others. .. Respondents [1] 2008 (1) ALD 29