IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14715 of 2008 Between: Goddu Narasimha Murthy S/o. Muthyalu Door No.3-16, Duvvadu, Chinayethapalem, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Tahsildar, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:DR.P.B.VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.0.35 cents in Survey No. 27.7 of Duvvada village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as illegal. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to regularize his possession in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166 dated 16-02- 2008. Heard Sri P.B.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments). The petitioner’s father was assigned an extent of Ac.1.38 cents in Survey No.27.7 of Duvvada Village. Respondent No.3 issued notice dated 03-11-2007 in form–I in the name of the father of the petitioner on the allegation that it has come to his notice that the said land was transferred in favour of P.Indira Sena, W/o Dhanunjaya Reddy, in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’) and that under Section 4 of the Act, the land is liable for resumption, and therefore, called upon to show cause within 15 days of receipt of the notice as to why assignment shall not be cancelled and land resumed to Government. The petitioner claims that since his father died long time back, on seeing the notice, he submitted his explanation dated 19-11-2007 and that no order has so far been communicated to him. He apprehended that without passing any order, the respondents may dispossess him. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without passing an order on the show cause notice, the respondents are not entitled to dispossess the petitioner. He also stated that in the explanation, the petitioner requested for regularization of his possession. The learned counsel relied on G.O.Ms.No.166 dated 16-02-2008 in support of the petitioner’s plea that he is entitled for regularization of his unauthorized possession of the land. A perusal of the record reveals that on the allegation that the original assignee violated the provisions of the Act by alienating the property in favour of a third party, the show cause notice was issued in exercise of the statutory powers of respondent No.3. Therefore, the question whether the allegation made against the assignee is correct or not is required to be adjudicated before the respondents contemplate any action for dispossessing the occupant of the land. The petitioner pleads that no order has been either passed or communicated to him. In the light of this plea, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition, without going into the merits of the case, with the direction to respondent No.3 to pass appropriate order on the show cause notice issued by him, after considering the explanation of the petitioner, if not already done. If no order has been passed so far, the petitioner shall be permitted to file additional explanation, if any, within a period of two weeks from today, and he shall not be dispossessed until such time as an order is passed and also for a period of one week from the date of communication of the order. In the event an order has already been passed, the petitioner is given liberty to avail his remedies available under law to question such an order. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.19027 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date: 10th July, 2008 Note: Issue C.C by 14-07-2008 vrn