IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 2520 of 1999 Between: 1 S Rama Devi W/o Vasantha Kumar R/o Madanapalli Town, Chittoor District. 2 G Eswaramma W/o G Reddeppa Reddy R/o Madanapalli Town, Chittoor District. 3 M Narsimha Reddy S/o Panduranga Reddy R/o Madanapalli Town, Chittoor District. 4 G Kanthamma W/o Reddeppa Reddy R/o Madanapalli Town, Chittoor District. 5 B Krishna Reddy S/o Subba Reddy R/o Madanapalli Town, Chittoor District. 6 G Redeppa Reddy S/o Maddi Reddy R/o Madanapalli Town, Chittoor District. 7 M Sou Reddy S/o Subbi Reddy R/o Madanapalli Town, Chittoor District. 8 S Shakeela Begum W/o Hydervali R/o Madanapalli Town, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer Madanapalli Revenue Mandal Chittoor District 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Madanapalli, Chittoor District 3 The Joint Collector Chittoor District 4 M Sankara Reddy S/o Bayya Reddy Madanapalli, Chittoor District R4 is compleded as per court order dt:26.4.2002 in w.p.m.p.No.28174/2001 .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 1st Respondent passed in Roc. No.A/1108/96, dt. 16/9/1997 and confirmed by the 2nd Respondent in D.Dis.9926/97 dt. 7/5/98 and the 3rd Respondent in D.Dis. (B3) 8597/98 dt. 24/12/1998 as illegal, arbritary and violative of Art.14 of Constitution of India and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.2520 OF 1999 ORDER: The order of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 16.09.1997, confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in his order dated 07.05.1998, and further confirmed i n revision by the Joint Collector in his proceedings dated 24.12.1998, is questioned in this writ petition. Petitioners claim to be landless poor. They contend that they jointly purchased an extent of Acs.5.25 cents for valuable consideration vide registered sale deed dated 08.05.1992, an extent of Acs.2.57 cents in Survey Nos.533/1C and an extent of Acs.2.26 cents in Sy.No.533/2A from the G.P.A. of Sri Gangulamma for Rs.72,500/- under registered sale deed dated 28.10.1991. They claim to be in possession ever since the date of purchase. The 1st respondent is said to have issued a notice under Form-I directing the respondents to show cause why they should not be evicted with a view to resume the land in favour of the Government. Thereafter, the Mandal Revenue Officer passed orders holding that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of Section 3 (5) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1977 (for short ‘Act’) and ordered that the petitioners be evicted from the land in question. The petitioners preferred an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer which was dismissed by proceedings dated 07.05.1998. Before this Court, Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that in view of Section 3 (5) of the Act, and since the petitioners are landless poor, bonafide purchase of assigned lands was beyond the purview of the Act. Section 3 (5) of the Act exempts assigned land purchased by the landless poor in good faith and for valuable consideration from the original assignee or his transferee prior to the commencement of the Act. Act No.9 of 1977 came into force with effect from 27.01.1977 whereas the lands in question were purchased in the year 1992, more than 15 years thereafter. Reliance placed by the petitioners, on Section 3 (5) of the Act, is misplaced. Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, would place reliance on an order of this Court in W.P.Nos.529 of 1994 and 18513 of 1999, dated 25.07.2000, wherein this Court, taking note of the fact that on the basis of an earlier representation the District Collector had asked the Revenue Divisional Officer to send a report, directed the District Collector to consider the request of the petitioner for alienation of the land as per the market value. The observations of this Court in the aforesaid judgment is not the ratio and does not constitute a binding precedent for other cases. Whether the Government should alienate the land in favour of the petitioners at market value, whether such alienation is permissible, are all questions which, in the absence of it being put in issue, is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine. It would suffice if this Court were to merely observe that in case the petitioners desire to make a representation they may do so and, in case, a representation is filed, this order will not preclude the respondents from examining any such request made by them in accordance with law. Subject to these observations, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________ 12-08-2008 GS