THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 3634 of 2007 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the Proceedings No.B/289/99 dated 27.1.2007 on the file of 4th respondent and to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal. Vide the impugned order dated 27.1.2007, under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 the Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy District had passed an order of resumption of assigned lands in S.Nos. 393/1 to 393/20, admeasuring Ac.142-39 guntas, on the ground that the assignees have violated the conditions of assignment. Petitioners are 45 in number. It appears, an extent of more than 300 acres in S.No.393 of Manchirevula village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, was described as Government Ghairan land. About 20 persons, (the petitioners and their forefathers) occupied an extent of 150 acres of land in S.Nos. 393/1 and 393/2 since the year 1940 and applied to the erstwhile Government of Hyderabad for sanction of patta under the Laoni Rules framed under the Telangana Area Land Revenue Act, 1370 Fasli. The Government of Hyderabad, after obtaining report from the Collector dated 18.7.1953 and the Board of Revenue dated 29.9.1953, sanctioned assignment of 200 acres of Astabal Kancha of Manchirevula village to the landless poor persons under special Laoni Rules, after regular Phodi, on 28.10.1953. Pursuant to the grant of assignment, proceedings at various levels up to 1961. Accordingly, on 21.10.1961 Phodi was made and actual patta certificates were issued and the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. While that being so, it appears, the Inspector General of Police, Special Security Force, Andhra Pradesh sent requisitions on 12.1.1993 and 3.1.1994 for acquisition of the land held by the petitioners. However, instead of acquiring the lands, the District Revenue Officer, acting as Collector, issued a show-cause notice on 28.3.1994 proposing to resume the land on the ground that the land has not been put to cultivation etc. Challenging the said show-cause notice,W.P. No. 9106 of 1994 was filed before this Court. While admitting the writ petition, on 3.5.1994 interim stay of dispossession was ordered and the petitioners were also directed to submit their explanation to the show-cause notice. Thus, the petitioners have filed explanation to the show-cause notice dated 28.3.1994, on 6.5.1994. The District Revenue Officer, acting as Collector, by his order dated 15.9.1994 found that the grounds taken and the allegations made in the show-cause notice dated 28.3.1994 were unfounded, untenable and further held that the assignment was made to the petitioners in accordance with law and cannot be interfered after more than 30 years. However, on 3.1.1995 the District Collector suspended the orders of the District Revenue Officer dated 15.9.1994 and sought for ratification of his order dated 3.1.1995 from the Government, through letter dated 31.7.1995. The Government ratified the orders of the Collector dated 3.1.1995 and 31.7.1995, by an order dated 24.1.1996. The said proceedings were challenged before this Court in W.P. Nos. 484 of 1995 and 7221 of 1995 and by order dated 1.9.1997, this Court allowed the said writ petitions and quashed the proposals of the Government for resumption of the lands. The said order of the learned Single Judge in the above writ petitions was confirmed by a Division Bench on 14.9.1998. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents approached the Supreme Court. However, by an order dated 28.4.2000, the Supreme Court set aside the order passed by Division Bench of this Court, on the ground that the jurisdiction was vested with the District Collector and not the District Revenue Officer to pass such orders and, therefore, remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the District Collector. When the enquiry was sought to be conducted by Joint Collector afresh, the petitioners have filed a Memo on 17.8.2001 taking an objection, that the enquiry has to be specifically taken up by the Collector, as directed by the Supreme Court, but not by any other authority. In spite of the said objection, the Joint Collector took up the enquiry contrary to the orders passed by the Supreme Court. Further, on 22.12.2001, the Joint Collector, instead of Collector, once again proposed to resume the land on some untenable grounds. The said order of the Joint Collector dated 22.12.2001 was challenged before this Court in W.P. No. 4812 of 2002 and the same was allowed at the admission stage on 4.4.2002 setting aside the order of the Joint Collector and directing the Collector to pass orders afresh. On 10.5.2003, the Collector once again passed orders proposing to resume the land on the same untenable grounds as were raised by the Joint Collector. On 14.10.2003, the order of the Collector dated 10.5.2003 was again challenged before this Court in W.P. Nos. 13165 of 2003 and 23639 of 2003 and by an order dated 21.4.2006, this Court quashed the proposals of resumption and allowed the said writ petitions. In spite of such orders passed by this Court, 4th respondent i.e. the Mandal Revenue Officer again issued notice to the petitioners on 11.2.2006, on some unfounded allegations. The petitioners, however, submitted their explanation on 29.12.2006 stating that the allegations made therein are unfounded and all those allegations were subject matter of adjudication in W.P.Nos. 13165 and 23639 of 2003. According to the petitioners, without considering the said objections, the 4th respondent once again passed resumption orders dated 27.1.2007. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. The respondents have filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition. It is further stated that the then Tahsildar, West has assigned an extent of Ac.142-39 guntas in favour of several individuals on 21.10.1961 in terms of the policy which was in force at that point of time i.e. Revised Assignment Policy issued in G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.7.1958. The said policy had superseded the earlier assignment policy under Laoni Rules, 1950. The assignments granted in favour of the said individuals have been implemented in the revenue records during the year 1961-62 through Paisal Patti but no supplementary setwar was issued. The petitioners seem to be under the impression that the lands were issued in their favour under Laoni rules, which had ceased to exist as on the date of assignment. Hence, the assignments in question are covered by Revised Assignment Policy dated 25.7.1958. Further, it was brought to the notice of the District Revenue Officer that the lands assigned to the petitioners were kept fallow and unfit for cultivation. Therefore, the District Revenue Officer issued notice vide No.D1/275/94 dated 28.3.1994 to determine whether the assignment granted to the petitioners has to be cancelled or not. The District Revenue Officer, in his proceedings D1/275/94 dated 15.9.1994 passed orders declaring that the assignment granted in favour of the petitioners is valid and dropped proceedings under Section 166-B of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 F. However, the Collector suo motu undertook revision against the said orders and passed orders in Proc.No.D1/81/95 dated 3.1.1995, suspending the orders of the District Revenue Officer dated 5.9.1994, as well as the orders of assignment issued by Tahsildar dated 21.10.1961. Further, the Collector directed the M.R.O. Rajendra Nagar to stop all further improvements and other activities in the land, immediately. The Government in their Memo No.54411/Assn.III (3)/95-3 dated 24.1.1995 ratified the action of the Collector. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed W.P. Nos. 484 of 1995 and 7221 of 1996 and this Court by a common order dated 1.9.1997 allowed the writ petitions and set aside the impugned orders therein. The State Government filed writ appeal against the said orders vide W.A. No. 1487 of 1998 and W.A. No. 24 of 2000 and this Court dismissed the said appeal confirming the orders of the learned single Judge. Aggrieved by the same, the State Government preferred S.L.P. before the Supreme Court vide SLP Nos. 3033 of 2000 and 4444 of 2000 and the Supreme Court by its order dated 28.4.2000 remanded the matter to the District Collector, Rangareddy District to complete the proceedings initiated by him vide orders dated 3.1.1995 and further directed the District Collector to proceed further from the stage prevailing as on 3.1.1995. Pursuant to the said directions of the Supreme Court, the Joint Collector, Rangareddy passed orders in Proc.No.E1/3539/96 dated 22.12.2001 setting aside the orders of the District Revenue Officer dated 15.9.1995 and directed that the land be resumed to the Government. The petitioners filed W.P. 4812 of 2002 only on the ground that though the Supreme Court directed the District Collector to pass orders, the Joint Collector has passed orders contrary to the said directions and this Court by an order dated 4.4.2002 set aside the orders passed by the Joint Collector and directed the Collector, Rangareddy District to pass orders in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Collector, Rangareddy District in Proc.No.E1/2233/2002 dated 10.5.2003 passed a detailed order in exercise of the powers vested u/s., 166B, ordering resumption of the lands. Further, it is stated that the communications prior to 21.10.1961 were inter-departmental communications and do not confer any right on the petitioners. Approval by the Government of the proposal for assignment during the year 1953 has no consequence till the actual assignment was made on 21.10.1961. As on the said date, the revised assignment policy has come into existence through G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.7.1958. The possession of the petitioners and their predecessors in title as on the date of assignment was specifically denied. Though the assignments were granted in favour of the petitioners, no supplementary setwar has been issued so far, ordering sub- divisions of the survey numbers. (The petitioners through G.P.A. Holder Sri Allah Bakshi, brought into existence as many as 64 sale deeds and they have not taken any steps to cancel the said sale deeds). Therefore, they cannot plead ignorance of execution of sale deeds by their G.P.A. The allegations that the show-cause notice issued by the respondents is in contravention of the orders passed by this Court in W.P. Nos. 13175 and 23639 of 2003 dated 21.4.2006 and that the subject matter of notice and issues in the writ petition are already adjudicated and therefore the principle of res judicata applies, are also denied. It is further stated that the petitioners have deliberately suppressed the sale transactions in the earlier proceedings and now they are calling upon the respondents to furnish the names of the purchasers, though they are fully aware of the same. Admittedly no steps have been taken by the petitioners to cancel the sale deeds executed by them and the contentions raised by the petitioners do not stand the scrutiny of law. The writ petition has no merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Learned senior counsel Sri K. Pratap Reddy, appearing for the petitioners, contended that while possession of the petitioners and their predecessors-in-title in respect of Ac.7-06 guntas each was recognized and regularized by sanction of the Government, the subordinate authorities took their own time for making ‘Phodi’ (sub-divisions) of each extent of Ac.7-06 guntas of land for giving them different survey numbers i.e. S.Nos. 393/2 to 393/21. These formalities appear to have taken quite some time and ultimately the then Collector, Hyderabad by his proceedings dated 4.6.1960 reported to the Board of Revenue that in pursuance of the Government Order dated 28.10.1953 the sub-division of the land allotted to each one of the petitioners has been formalized and finalized. It was specifically mentioned that while the aggregate extent of land given to the petitioners and their predecessors-in-title was Ac.142-39 guntas and the remaining extent of Ac.183-29 guntas in S.No.393 has to be auctioned as Kancha. Ultimately, on 21.10.1961 individual pattas to each of the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest were handed over. The fact of actual possession, cultivation and enjoyment of the said land by each one of the petitioners or their predecessors-in-title is evident by various proceedings of the respondents themselves including the letter of Tahsildar dated 7.11.1959 to the Collector, Hyderabad and the letter of the Collector dated 4.6.1960, which categorically recorded that the land was already assigned as a matter of fact to the Harijans as per the Government Order dated 28.10.1953. Thus, the issuance of individual pattas on 21.10.1961 was only a formality. Further, it is stated that the sales purported to have been made by the petitioners are neither true nor correct. Nobody has come forward and claimed compensation against these lands, except the petitioners. The purported G.P.A. was never given effect to and no details of the purchasers and land held by them were furnished at any point of time. The whole exercise of cancellation of assignment in favour of the petitioners was made to deny the legitimate compensation/ex gratia for which the poor harizans were entitled for. This is demonstrable from the very proceedings issued by the respondents and the said proceedings attained finality in W.P. No. 13165 of 2003 and batch, wherein the learned Judge has observed that the show-cause notice issued by the District Revenue Officer, Rangareddy District was not legal and proper and when the show-cause notice itself is set aside, the basis for passing the impugned order therein by the District Collector cannot be said to be well founded. However, a passing observation was made that if there is any contravention of the conditions imposed in the assignment order, the Government is always at liberty to cancel the same in accordance with the provisions of the law. In fact, firstly, the Laoni Rules, 1958 are not applicable and, secondly, the Telangana Land Revenue Act 1317 Fasli has no application to the facts of the case, since this assignment was made in the year 1953 itself and the petitioners were in possession of the subject land, much prior to that. Further, the matter of adjudication against the assignment made in favour of the petitioners had already attained finality. Therefore, the same issue which is settled between the parties cannot be raised again and again, and it attracts the doctrine of res judicata. Thus, the action of the respondents in passing the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal and liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader Sri S. Sriram, representing the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents, reiterated the same stand as was taken in the counter, and additional counter and submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material made available on record. As could be seen from the material made available, ultimately, the show-cause notice issued on 28.3.1994 and the orders passed in pursuance to the said show-cause notice i.e. proceedings in File No.E/2237/02 dated 10.5.2003 have attained finality in view of disposal of W.P.Nos. 13165 of 2003, 23269 of 2003 and C.C. 163 of 2004 by an order dated 21.4.2006. Therefore, the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the lis between the parties and the issues involved therein have attained finality in the earlier litigation i.e. W.P. No. 13165 of 2003 and batch and, therefore, the question of again issuing notice on the very same grounds amounts to res judicata, cannot be said to be far from truth. In this regard, it is necessary to notice paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17 of the order passed in W.P. No. 13165 of 2003 and batch, which read as follows: “The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioners and the predecessors in interest have been in possession and enjoyment of the lands right from the year 1953. Their possession came to be recognized and orders of assignment came to be issued on 21.10.1961. The District Revenue Officer exercising powers under section 166-B sought to cancel the assignments on two grounds by issuing a show-cause notice. The two grounds are: firstly, after introduction of Assignment Rules, 1958, the Laoni Rules, 1950 became inoperative and therefore the assignments made under the rules which were not in exercise are invalid and secondly, the assignees resorted to alienating the lands contrary to the terms of the assignment. For the sake of brevity, I may reproduce the operative portion of the show-cause notice, and it is thus: “In view of the above irregularities committed by the Subordinate Officer, the matter taken on suo motu revision under sections 166-B of A.P. (T.A) L.R. Act, 1317 F. Therefore, Sir Mailarap Mallaiah s/o Yellaiah r/o Manchirevula is called upon to explain the reasons why the alleged permission granted for temporary occupation of Government land and subsequently implemented in Faisalpatti, should not be cancelled and their names should not be deleted from the village pahanies for the period from 1963-64 to till date, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Failure to offer any explanation would tantamount acceptance of the above mentioned irregularities and it would be concluded that the alleged assignment is irregular, illegal and in contrary with the rules then existed and orders will be passed to cancel the alleged assignment and for deleting the names from the pahanies”. Undisputedly, the lands came to be assigned to the assignees by virtue of their being in possession of the lands and the names of the assignees have been implemented in the revenue records through Faisal Patti for the year 1961-62 and their names have been brought in the revenue records and continued as pattadars. It can be said without any fear of contradiction that the lands have been in possession of the petitioners/their predecessors in interest over a period of 40 years prior to the issuance of show cause notice dated 28.3.1994. The question that falls for consideration is whether after a lapse of 40 years the District Revenue Officer is justified in invoking suo motu revision with the sole object of canceling the assignments which came to be given effect in the year 1961-62. The principal ground on which assignments sought to be cancelled by invoking the review powers under section 166-B of the Act is execution of GPA by the assignees in favour of the predecessor in interest. As on this day, the GPA holder is not alive and even if any power of attorney exists, it ceases with his death. Therefore, no cause survives for the District Revenue Officer to take suo motu review. The other question is whether the assignments made in favour of the petitioners and their predecessor in interest is contrary to the Rules then in existence. That issue is not required to be examined after a lapse of nearly 40 years. The Laoni patta certificates came to be issued in accordance with the provisions of Laoni Rules, 1950. Merely because those Rules came to be amended by substituting some other rules cannot be a ground to exercise suo motu review by the District Revenue Officer or the District Collector under Section 166-B of the Act. In view of the above discussion, I find that the show cause notice issued by the District Revenue Officer, R.R. District is not legal and proper. When once the show cause notice is set aside, the basis for passing the order impugned in the writ petitions by the Joint Collector cannot be said to be well founded. Before parting the case, I deem it appropriate to observe that if there is any contravention of the conditions imposed in the assignment order, the Government is always at liberty to cancel the same in accordance with the provisions of law”. From the above, it is seen that the very show-cause notice issued on 28.3.1994 was found to be not legal and proper and, therefore, the impugned order therein dated 10.5.2003 was set aside after having found that as on the date the G.P.A. Holder was not alive and even if any power of attorney exists, it ceased with his death and, therefore, no cause survives for District Revenue Officer to take suo motu review. It was also observed that the other question that whether the assignment made in favour of the petitioners or their predecessors in interest is contrary to the Rules then in existence, is not required to be examined after a lapse of nearly 40 years. The Laoni patta certificates came to be issued in accordance with the provisions of Laoni Rules, 1950. Merely because those Rules came to be amended by substituting some other rules, it cannot be a ground to exercise suo motu review by the District Revenue Officer or the District Collector under Section 166- B of the Act. Thus, the allegations that the petitioners were not cultivating the land or they were not in possession of the subject land and the G.P.A. Holder was trying to dispose of the land etc., were all considered in W.P. No. 13165 of 2003 and the orders passed thereon have attained finality. What the learned Judge observed was, if there is any contravention of the conditions imposed in the assignment order, the Government is always at librety to cancel the same in accordance with the provisions of law. In fact, against these observations, the petitioners have filed Review WPMP No. 15642 of 2006 in W.P. No. 13165 of 2003 and on 7.7.2006, this Court passed the following order: “Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the review petitioners and learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents. This review petition has been filed for deletion of the clause whereby liberty has been given to the Government to cancel the same in accordance with the provisions of law, if there are any contraventions of the conditions imposed in the assigned order. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that since the Assignment was under Laoni Rules, 1950, the question of invoking any other provisions of law for cancellation of the assignment is not proper and therefore, the observation made in the writ petition needs to be deleted. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in G.V.K.Rama ao v. Bakeite Hylam Employees Co-op. House Building Society, Hyderabad (1997 (4) ALT 304) and Shyam Sunder v. Govt. of A.P. Revenue (Assignment) Department (2001 (6) ALT 128. The observation made in the last but two paragraphs of the writ petition reads as follows: “In view of the above discussion, I find that the show cause notice issued by the District Revenue Officer, R.R. District is not legal and proper. When once the show cause notice is set aside, the basis for passing the order impugned in the writ petitions by the Joint Collector cannot be said to be well founded. Before parting the case, I deem it appropriate to observe that if there is any contravention of the conditions imposed in the assignment order, the Government is always at liberty to cancel the same in accordance with the provisions of law”. What is stated in the above paragraph is that in case of contravention of the conditions imposed in the assignment order, the Government is always at liberty to initiate necessary proceedings. If the contention of the learned Senior Counsel is accepted, it would fetter on the powers of the Government to cancel the land in case the land is not used for the purpose for which it was assigned. I do not se any valid ground to review the order passed in W.P. No. 13165 of 2003 dated 21.4.2006. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed”. The learned Judge earlier observed that this will not preclude the authorities from taking action, if there is any contravention of the conditions imposed in the assignment patta. This must be deemed as, “if any future contravention is made and not otherwise”. All the grounds on which the earlier litigation attained finality are being raised again by way of issuing notice and passing final orders, which are impugned in this writ petition,