IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 21940 of 2008 Between: Gorla Narayana Reddy, S/o. Somi Reddy, R/o. Rejarla, Siddaram Revenue Village, Sathupalli Mandal, Khamam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Prl Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Khammam District, Guntur, 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sathupalli, Khammam District. 4 The Tahasildar, Sathupalli Mandal, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to pass order or orders more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the impugned proceedings dated 01-04-2007 issued by 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and opposed to law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CH.SHANMUKHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner questioning the notice dated 1.4.2007, issued in Form I, by the 4th respondent – Tahsildar, Sathupalli Mandal of Guntur District under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007(for short ‘the Rules’). It is the case of the petitioner that the land in an extent of Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.39/16, 39/17 and 39/29 of Siddaram Village of erstwhile Madhira taluka and now Sathupalli Mandal was a government land and loani pattas were issued for the said land in favour of Sadhu China Venkayya, Nakka Venkayya and Nakka Somayya during 1955-56 who sold the said land to one Tumburu Subba Reddy from whom the petitioner purchased the said land in the year 1975 and his name was mutated in the revenue records and pattadar pass books were also issued to him. While so, the impugned notice is issued by the 4th respondent seeking to resume the said land for the contravention of the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). Hence this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958 has introduced a clause prohibiting sale of the assigned lands and since the lands in question are assigned in the year 1955 to the original assignee without any prohibition to sell the same, it cannot be said that the petitioner contravened the provisions of the Act and, therefore, the lands are liable to be resumed. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned government pleader, on instructions, submits that inasmuch as the land in question was assigned in the year 1955, the impugned notice issued under the provisions of 1977 Act has no application since there is no prohibition for alienation of the lands assigned in the year 1955. It is also submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court considered the issue in W.P.Nos.18270 and 19568 of 2008 dated 29.8.2008 and gave a ﬁndings that 1977 Act has no application to the assignments made in the year 1955. Following the aforesaid Judgment in W.P.Nos.18270 and 19568 of 2008 dated 29.8.2008, the impugned notice is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. N.V.RAMANA,J Dt.20.10.2008 msv