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 : 22379 of 2005 Between: C.B. Munirami Reddy, S/op. Krishna Reddy, R/o. Thanapalli Village, Tirupati Rural mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Chittoor District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 3 The Chairman/Managing Director, A.P. Housing Board, Hyderabd. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.ESWARAIAH Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land with existing crop and R.C.C. residential building in an extent of Acs.2.06½ cents out of land admeasuring Acs.5.13 cents in Survey No.490/1 of Avilala Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District and trying to handover the said land to respondent No.3 for construction of houses under ‘Rajiv Gruhakalpa’ as wholly arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land and residential building. Heard Sri V.Eswaraiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment). In his affidavit, the petitioner claimed that he purchased land of an extent of Acs.2.06½ cents in Survey No.490/1 of Avilala Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District from one Kotte Jagannathareddy, Son of Govindareddy and Esambattu Harinathareddy, Son of Subbareddy, for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,15,600/- under registered sale deed, dated 19.09.1996. The petitioner claimed that he is in exclusive and peaceful possession of the said land. According to the petitioner, land of an extent of Acs.5.13 cents, of which, the property in dispute forms part, originally belonged to one Kola Lakshmaiah; that the said person sold away the land to one Mukkara Ramaiah through registered sale deed, dated 21.06.1966; that the said Ramaiah sold the said land to Smt. Vakati Kamalamma through registered sale deed, dated 20.03.1970; that the said Kamalamma dug a well and obtained electricity service connection to the said well under service connection bearing No.291 under category V during 1972 and cultivated the land and that the said person sold the land to N.Hathiram Naidu and K.Jagannatha Reddy under registered sale deed, dated 26.05.1980. The petitioner averred that from the said persons, he purchased the land admeasuring Acs.2.06½ cents under registered sale deed, dated 19.09.1996. He also averred that apart from raising groundnut crops and planting coconut trees, he constructed an R.C.C. building over an extent of 100 sq.yards and has been residing in the said house with his family. He pleaded that on seeing a news item in Eenaadu daily, dated 26.08.2005 wherein it is stated that respondent Nos.1 and 2 handed over the said land to respondent No.3 for construction of houses under ‘Rajiv Gruhakalpa’, the petitioner approached respondent Nos.1 and 2 and he had learnt that they are trying to handover the lands for constructing houses. The petitioner questioned the action of interference of the respondents with the said property. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, respondent No.2, it is stated that in the village accounts of Avilala, land admeasuring Acs.5.13 cents comprised in Survey No.490/1 was originally classified as assessed waste dry and that the said land was assigned to Sri Kola Lakshmaiah on 25.03.1955 with usual Dharkhast conditions and also in terms of the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.1142 Revenue Department, dated 18.06.1954; that under the said conditions, the land is heritable but not alienable and that violating the said conditions, Sri K.Lakshmaiah alienated the land to Sri Ramaiah through registered sale deed, dated 21.06.1966 and subsequently, the property changed several hands. After the property was purchased by Nuthalapati Hathiram Naidu and Radhamma under registered sale deed, dated 26.05.1980, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati Rural Mandal initiated action by issuing notices and cancelling the assignment and resumed the land vide proceedings, dated 20.02.1986 and that possession was handed over to the Government under a cover of panchanama, dated 28.02.1986. It is specifically pleaded that no appeals were filed against the said order and thus, the same has become final. It is also alleged that many years after resumption of the land, the petitioner purchased the land admeasuring Acs.2.06½ cents from K.Jagannatha Reddy through registered sale deed, dated 19.09.1996. The respondents, therefore, pleaded that purchase of assigned land by the petitioner that too after its resumption did not confer any right or title on the petitioner. The answering respondent denied the averment of the petitioner that the land was cultivated and a building was constructed, by taking the specific stand that the photographs filed by the petitioner showing coconut trees, groundnut crop and buildings do not pertain to land in Survey No.490/1, which is the subject matter of the dispute, and that the petitioner is residing in house bearing No.2-21 at Thanapalle Village as evident from the white card issued in the name of the petitioner and also the voters list, in which, his name at Sl.No.875 of P.S.No.256 of Tirupathi Assembly Constituency is shown. The petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit controverting the allegations contained in the counter-affidavit. I n Dharma Reddy v. Sub-Collector, Bodhan, Nizamabad District[1], a Full Bench of this Court held that Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 creates a complete bar on the sale of the assigned lands barring the cases falling under Section 3(5) and that Section 3 not only prohibits transfer of the assigned lands on or after the commencement of the Act, but also declares retrospectively that all transfers of such assigned land, which took place prior to the coming into force of the Act shall also be null and void, non est in the eye of law and no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer. In view of this authoritative pronouncement, the claim of the petitioner that he has become the lawful owner of the property in question as he purchased the same under registered sale deed, is liable to be rejected. While not denying the allegation of the respondents that the property in dispute was an assigned land and was resumed almost ten years prior to the purchase of it by the petitioner, the petitioner has not traced the nature of title of the original owner of the property. Hence, this Court has no option other than accepting the plea of the respondents that the property in dispute is an assigned land and no rights whatsoever came to be vested in the petitioner under the purported registered sale deed. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order, dated 14.10.2005 is vacated and WPMP.No.28659 of 2005 is dismissed. WVMP.No.3523 of 2005 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 4th JULY, 2008. kvni [1] 1987(1) ALT FB 124