HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.31175 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted seeking a writ of Mandamus for declaring the action of the first and second respondents namely the District Collector, West Godavari, Eluru and the Tahsildar, Eluru Mandal, the second respondent, in seeking to evict the petitioner from the house premises bearing No.7-167, Chataparru Road, Venkatapuram Panchayat, Eluru, as bad in law. The case of the petitioner is that the third respondent agreed to sell the house property bearing No.7-167, Chataparru Road, Venkatapuram Panchayat, Eluru and executed an agreement of sale in that regard on 09.08.2010 after receiving a sum of Rs.50,000/- as part payment towards the consideration amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs settled between the parties. It is also further case of the petitioner that the balance amount of Rs.2 lakhs was also delivered but however the third respondent has dodged to execute a sale deed in his favour. In those set of circumstances, the petitioner herein appears to have instituted a civil suit bearing O.S.No.415 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Eluru. Since the issue was pending in the civil Court, thus the respondents 1 and 2 started un- necessarily interfering with the possession of the petitioner of the house property mentioned supra. Hence he instituted this writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent has drawn my attention to an order passed on 08.03.2011 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge at Eluru in I.A.No.1450 of 2011 in O.S.No.415 of 2010. The said I.A.1451 of 2010 was moved by the petitioner herein seeking an injunction against the third respondent to restrain her from alienating the plaint schedule property in favour of third parties. The stand taken by the third respondent before the civil Court was that she has not entered into any such sale transaction with the petitioner and that as per Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’), no such alienation is permissible and hence the question of the third respondent agreeing to alienate the property in question in favour of the writ petitioner would not arise. Considering the entire material, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for and hence dismissed the I.A. Now, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, upon receipt of the instructions, submits that the land in question was an assigned land and consequently the prohibition contained in Section 3 of the Act is attracted and hence the third respondent could not have alienated the property in question at all in favour of the petitioner. In-fact it is further pointed out that the third respondent was not the original beneficiary of assignment/grant made by the Government. She herself was a purchaser from the original grantee. In-fact upon coming to know all these facts, the second respondent- Tahsildar is taking necessary steps to put the original assignee on notice and only after considering the objections/explanation of the original assignee, the entire issue will be examined. Therefore, at this stage it will be totally premature for the petitioner herein to seek any participation in any such enquiry. Leaving the parties to work out their respective remedies, the present Writ Petition is dismissed as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue has assured this Court that the necessary process of issuing notice and then considering the explanation of the original assignee will be undertaken by them. No costs. _______________________________________ JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO 04.08.2011 VJL