IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11581 of 2005 Between: K.Mallesh, S/o. Late K.Rajaiah, R/o. 8.2.269/19/464/A, Indira Nagar, Banjarahills, Road No.2,Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Mandal Revenue Officer, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: None appeared Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal having regard to the nature of the case. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in attempting to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas comprised in Survey No.159/L (part) of Yellampet Village and Gram Panchayat, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District without following due process of law and without considering the explanation submitted by him to show cause notice, dated 21.03.2005, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. In respect of the above mentioned land, notice in Form-I was issued under Rule 3 of the Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 1977 (for short ‘the Rules’) wherein the petitioner was asked to show cause why he shall not be summarily evicted form the land, as he was found to have been in possession of the land in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). In his affidavit, the petitioner claimed that he gave reply on 21.04.2005 and on the allegation that even before passing an order, the respondent tried to dispossess him, he filed the present writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it is averred that since the land in possession of the petitioner is an assigned land, which cannot be alienated, action is already initiated against the petitioner and is being initiated against the original assignee. The respondent, however, has not denied the allegation of the petitioner that he attempted to dispossess the petitioner even before passing an order on the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, the averment of the petitioner to this effect deserves to be accepted. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent not to dispossess the petitioner or in any manner interfere with his enjoyment of the property in question till the explanation of the petitioner is considered objectively and an order is passed under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WVMP.No.66 of 2006 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 4th JULY, 2008. kvni