IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 375 of 2008 Between: 1 Cherukuthota Singayya S/o.Gurrayya 2 Kallem Mohan Rao S/o.Venkayya 3 Medikonda Suguna W/o.Raju 4 Ponnamala Chantamma W/o.Subba Rao 5 Tadri Papa Rao S/o.Naganna 6 Mulagala Gobbamma W/o.China Peddiyya 7 Gedda Nagamma W/o.Naganna 8 Kota Venkatesh S/o.Ramayya 9 Kota Pentaiah S/o.Ramaiah 10 Mulagala Bataiah S/o.China Peddaiah All are agriculturists, R/o. Anantapalli Village, Nallajerla Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, West Godavari at Eluru. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nallajerla Mandal, West Godavari District. 3 The Tahsildar, Nallajerla Mandal, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not passing any orders on the representation of the petitioners for assignment of the land in Sy.No.310/2 of Anantapalli village, Nallajerla Mandal, West Godavri District and the action of the 3rd Respondent in threatening to dispossess the petitioners by invoking the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 24.12.2007 for assignment of the land and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.375 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER: The petitioners state that they belong to weaker sections of the society and are landless poor and are in occupation and possession of the land admeasuring Ac.1.00 cents each in R.S.No.310/2 of Anantapalli Village, Nallajerla Mandal, West Godavari District. Though in the year 1987, the 3rd respondent, namely, the Tashildar, Nallajerla Mandal, West Godavari district, assigned the land in question to one Vedantam Venkata Subrahmanyam, the petitioners were never dispossessed from the land in question and they continued to be in possession of the same. While so, the petitioners state that the 3rd respondent issued a notice under the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, in the year 2005 calling upon them to show cause as to why they should not be evicted from the land in question, to which they submitted their explanation stating they are landless poor persons and eligible for assignment under the provisions of the Board Standing Orders, and requested the 3rd respondent to assign the land in question in their favour. As things stood thus, the petitioners state that another notice was issued by the 3rd respondent in Form-I under the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, in the month of April, 2007 stating that the land in question is a land assigned in favour of a military person, and why they should not be dispossessed. In response thereto, the petitioners state that they submitted a representation to the local MLA and a copy thereof to the 1st respondent, namely, the District Collector, West Godavari at Eluru, which was numbered as 53 dated 24.12.2007, requesting them to consider their claim for assignment of the land in question in their favour. Now it is the case of the petitioners that the 3rd respondent without considering the explanation submitted by them to the notice issued under the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act and also the representation dated 24.12.2007 made by them pursuant to the notice issued under the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, and without passing any orders thereon, is threatening to dispossess them from the land in question. Hence, they filed the present writ petition. This Court while ordering notice before admission on 08.01.2008 granted status quo order initially for a period of four weeks. Thereafter, petition in W.P.M.P. No.4925 of 2008 was ﬁled by a third party, seeking to implead himself as party-respondent in the writ petition, which was ordered. The oﬃcial respondents ﬁled counter aﬃdavit and additional counter aﬃdavit. The petitioners ﬁled their replies to the said counters. The impleaded 4th respondent ﬁled counter stating that he is the absolute owner and is in possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac.10.00 cents in Survey No.310/2 of Anantapalli Village having purchased the same under a registered sale dated 04.12.2007 for a valuable consideration from his vendors Vedantam Parvathi Devi and her sons, and that originally the said land was Government assessed waste land and was assigned to one Vedantam Venkata Subrahmanyam who was a freedom ﬁghter, and that the petitioners in connivance with the 3rd respondent tried to get the land in question assigned in their favour, and in that process the 3rd respondent issued the alleged notice in Form-I under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, and that the petitioners are never in possession of the land in question. He, therefore, sought that the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government for Revenue for the oﬃcial respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the impleaded 4th respondent. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, submitted that the alleged notice issued to the petitioners has been withdrawn. A perusal of the additional counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents shows that the alleged notice was issued in a routine manner and paragraphs 2 and 3 thereof, which are relevant, read as under: “2. It is respectfully submitted that notices issued to the petitioners on 19.4.2007 in a routine manner, where the Government lands were occupied by third parties, other than assignees as per the revenue records and as per the local enquiry by the revenue authorities. As such this respondent issued notice to the petitioners in a routine manner, who are not in possession of the said lands. This respondent is not taking any further steps in this issue. Hence, there is no cause of action effected to the writ petitioners. 3. It is further submitted that the land originally assigned to one Venkata Subrahmanyam @ Vedanta Kavi of Kovvur, West Godavari District. After his demise his legal heirs soldt he land to one Milineni Vinay Kumar is in possession of the said land and enjoying the property.” From the above statement made by the 3rd respondent- Tahsildar, in the additional counter aﬃdavit, it is clear that the petitioners are not in possession and enjoyment of the land in question, that the 3rd respondent has issued the notice in routine manner, which he withdrew, and that the impleaded 4th respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the land in question. Since the petitioners are said to be not in possession of the land in question, and the alleged notice itself having been withdrawn, no relief, much less the relief sought for by the petitioners can be granted. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J. Date: 25.07.2008 VGSR