IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 9 of 2009 BETWEEN: Smt.Dubbaka Ramulamma W/o.Rangaiah R/o.H.No.18-9-191/1, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND The Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and set aside the said notices dated 05.12.2008 and 12.12.2008 in Proceedings No.C/2900/2008 issued by Respondent herein, they being illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable, both having aimed at evicting me from the land in an extent of Ac.8.00 in Sy.No.38/1 of Munguganoor Village of Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and to pass such other or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.Y.ASHOK RAJ Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard. 2. Petitioner questions the notices issued in Form I and II vide proceedings No.C/2900/2008 dated 05.12.2008 and 12.12.2008 respectively under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 in calling upon the petitioner and her vendor, the original assignee of the land of an extent of Ac.8.00 guntas in Sy.No.38/1 situated at Munuganoor Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to submit explanation within 15 days as to why she should not be summarily evicted in respect of the said assigned land purchased by her 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’). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid land was originally assigned in favour of one Chakali Atchaiah, who by occupation was Dhobi, in the year 1950-51 and the said Atchaiah died leaving behind his son viz. Chakali Narsimha, who sold the said property in favour of the petitioner vide registered sale deed bearing No.2487/76 dated 20.08.1976. He further submits that from the date of purchase, the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, Form-I notice was issued to the petitioner as well as Chakali Narsimha to which a detailed explanation dated 08.12.2008 has been submitted. Thereafter, another notice in Form-II has been issued to the petitioner alone calling upon her to submit explanation as to why she shall not be evicted summarily in respect of the said assigned land for contravention of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. He submits that to the said notice also explanation has been submitted on 16.12.2008. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that previously also similar notice was issued in the year 2004 to which a suitable explanation was submitted and after considering the said explanation, proceedings No.C/923/2001 dated 09.07.2004 have been passed by the respondent holding that after the death of Atchaiah his son, Chakali Narsimha succeeded to the said property and succession was also granted in his favour as per the proceedings in File No.A1/1771/77 passed by the then Tahsildar and thereafter the said property was sold in favour of the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 20.08.1976. The said alienation is not prohibited by the Act of 1977 if it is sold in favour of the landless poor and accordingly, the rival claim made by one Buddupally Mallamma W/o. Balraj was rejected. It is stated that the petitioner also filed WP.No.27860 of 2008 questioning the impugned notices herein dated 05.12.2008 and 12.12.2008 in proceedings No.C/2900/2008 and the same was dismissed by order dated 23.12.2008 holding that even before the expiry of 15 days period to submit explanation, the writ petition cannot be entertained and unless fifteen days time expires, no direction can be given to Tahsildar to dispose of the matter. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even after submitting explanation, the respondent without passing the final orders, which is appealable, is threatening to dispossess the petitioner. 6. There is no dispute that the assigned lands cannot be alienated either before or after commencement of the Act of 1977. Under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act if the assigned lands are purchased by the landless poor in good faith and for valuable consideration prior to the commencement of the Act 9 of 1977 and if the said land is in possession of the landless poor that too for the purpose of cultivation, the prohibition may not be applicable. 7. I am not inclined to express any opinion as to whether the petitioner is a landless poor and whether the said land is still used for the purpose of cultivation alone, as no final orders have been passed by the respondent as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act for the alleged breach of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. Against any order passed under Section 4 of the Act an appeal lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 4-A of the Act. However, I am of opinion that without passing final orders under Section 4 of the Act pursuant to the show cause notices issued in Form I and II, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed. Without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case and with regard to the earlier proceedings, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to pass appropriate final orders pursuant to the impugned show cause notices and till the final orders are passed under Section 4 of the Act, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J January 7, 2009 DSK