THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Rev.W.P.M.P.No.13992 of 2012 in Writ Petition No.4471 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in trying to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land, as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. It stated that an extent of Acs.3.88 cents of land in survey No.72/5 of Tamaram Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, was assigned to her vide proceedings, dated 28.02.2005, and even while the assignment is in force, the respondents are trying to dispossess her. On behalf of the respondents, it is represented that the land was initially assigned to one Mr.Jagarapu Swamy Naidu, and on his request, it was transferred in the name of the petitioner. It was also stated that on finding that the transfer was made contrary to the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 a notice, dated 21.06.2004, was issued, and since no explanation was submitted, the land was resumed to the Government vide proceedings, dated 28.09.2004. The writ petition was disposed of through order, dated 19.04.2010, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal. This review petition is filed stating that a serious factual error has crept into the proceedings. It is stated that when the assignment in favour of the petitioner itself is in the year 2005, the question of resuming the land from her in the year 2004, does not arise. The petitioner has also enclosed a copy of the letter, dated 02.08.2011, addressed by the Tahasildar to the Revenue Divisional Officer, stating that the possession of the land was resumed from the petitioner for rehabilitation colony and he recommended the payment of ex-gratia. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The writ petition and contempt case were heard together. In the counter-affidavit filed in the contempt case, it was mentioned that the land was initially assigned to one Mr.Jagarapu Swamy Naidu and that the same has been transferred in the name of the petitioner. Further, the case of the respondents was that the assignment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled through proceedings, dated 28.09.2004. Obviously because the date of assignment made in favour of the petitioner was not mentioned in the counter-affidavit, this Court took the plea of the respondents on its face value. A perusal of the order of assignment made in favour of the petitioner discloses that its date is 28.02.2005. Any proceedings initiated earlier thereto do not have any bearing upon the rights of the petitioner. At any rate, the Tahasildar has verified the entire material and took the view that the petitioner is entitled to be paid ex-gratia. Hence, the Review W.P.M.P. is allowed and the order dated 19.04.2010 is rejected. The writ petition is allowed and the respondents shall take steps to pay the ex-gratia to the petitioner as mentioned in the letter, dated 02.08.2011, issued by the Tahasildar, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:06.12.2012 GJ THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Rev.W.P.M.P.No.13992 of 2012 in Writ Petition No.4471 of 2009 0612.2012 GJ