IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY THE TWELVETH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WA.No. 3 6 9 OF 2010. Between: Badisa Vani Shiva Kumari … Appellant V/s. The Joint Collector, Krishna district at Machilipatnam & 2-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the appellant : Sri Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao Counsel for the respondents: GP for Revenue THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI. WRIT APPEAL NO. 3 6 9 OF 2010. O R D E R : (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The appellant herein is the unsuccessful writ petitioner and the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, confirming the order of the Joint Collector, who in turn affirmed the order of the appellate authority, the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as the original authority in resumption of land of the petitioner for violation of the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and that the land of the appellant were resumed by the order of Tahsildar dated 12-7-2007 after following due procedure prescribed under the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, the appellant was given show cause notice as to why an extent of Ac:1- 12 cents in RS.No.73/2a of Gaddamanugu village of G.Konduru Mandal in Krishna district originally assigned to Pachigolla Nagesu son of Subbaiah of Gaddamanugu village of G.Konduru Mandal in Krishna district found to be in occupation of Smt. Badisa Vani siva Kumari wife of late Yesu dasu and accordingly a notice was issued both to the original assignee and the transferee, calling upon them to submit their explanation within 15 days as to why the said land shall not be resumed. Though notice dated 10-4-2007 was served on 12-4-2007 but no explanation was submitted by the appellant. It is stated that the said land has been purchased by the appellant from the original assignee. Accordingly the said land resumed by passing an order under section 4 (1) (a) of the Act. 2. Against the said order of the Tahsildar, dated 12-7-2007, the appellant filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada and the appellate authority after considering the contentions of the appellant held that the appellant was found in illegal occupation of the said assigned land in contravention of sub- section (1) of Act 9 of 1977. As the alienation of the said land is prohibited and accordingly dismissed the appeal by order dated 26- 2-2008. As against the said order, the appellant filed a Revision before the Joint Collector and the Revisional authority after considering the contentions raised in the revision and after perusal of the record dismissed the revision. The contention of the appellant is that she is entitled for regularization of the land on the ground that the learned single held that after issuing proper notice in Form No.3 the land was resumed. 3. We have perused the order of the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge held that except making broad allegations that the petitioner’s husband is landless poor person, no other details are forth coming. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for the benefit of provisio to Rule 4, as the appellant has failed to prove that she is a landless poor. 4. In view of the concurrent findings by all the authorities which were affirmed by the learned single Judge, we do not see any ground to admit the writ appeal. 5. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH ______________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 12-05-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.A..No. 3 6 9 OF 2010 COMPUTER No. VEJ – BUNGALOW COURT MASTER : IsL Date: 12-5-2010