HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PEITITON No. 21459 OF 2010 Dated 9th September, 2010 Between: K.N. Chandrasekhar ………Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its District Collector, Anantapur District, Anantapur and two others ………..Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Smt. A. Triveni Reddy Counsel for the respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner and further declare the action of the respondents in interfering with his peaceful possession of the land in question as illegal. I have heard Smt. A. Triveni Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments). The petitioner claims that his father had purchased an extent of Acs.2.42 cents in Survey No. 53-1 of Gollapuram Village, Hindupur Sub-division, Anantapur Revenue Division through a registered sale deed from one Babu Rao, son of Narayana Rao. Even according to the petitioner, the said land was assigned to his father’s vendor in the year 1964. On 27-05-2009, respondent No.3 had issued a show cause notice under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and the rules made thereunder. The petitioner has submitted his explanation. The grievance of the petitioner is that without passing any order on the said show cause notice, respondent No.3 has forcibly entered the property in the second week of August, 2010 and claimed that a road will be laid thereon. The petitioner has therefore filed the present writ petition with the relief noted above. This Court by order dated 03-09-2010 while taking note of the statement made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that a resumption order was already passed, directed her to produce a copy of the same. Accordingly, today the learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed before the Court proceedings in Rc.No.51/2007/B, dated 15-10-2009 issued by respondent No.3 resuming the land to the Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that his client was never served with the said order. Inasmuch as a final order has been passed resuming the land, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. Respondent No.3 is directed to serve a copy of the resumption order to the petitioner forthwith to enable him to avail the remedy available to him in law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP Nos. 27290 and 27532 of 2010 filed by the petitioner are disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated: 9th September, 2010 ks