IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9730 of 2005 Between: Sri Prakash Chand Mahrotra, S/o. Kailash Nrayan Mehrotra, S.B.I. Lane, Puttaparthy, Annatapur District presently Residing at J16/6, Jalmandir Society, Bangur Nagar, Goergaon (W), Mumbai. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P., rep. by its CollectOr, Ananatapur District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Puttaparthi Mandal, Puttaparthy, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.PAPA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in considering representations dated 10-06-1998, 28-08-2001 and 15-08-2002 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders thereon within a fixed time frame. The petitioner claims that he owns and possesses certain extents of lands in Survey Nos.282/14 and 282/15. He averred that he intended to construct residential flats for devotees of Sathya Sai Baba and approached the Puttaparthy Urban Development Authority for granting permission for such construction and the said authority accorded sanction on 27-07-1994 in respect of Ac.0.10 cents in Survey No.282/15 and on 17-09-1995 in respect of Ac.0.20 cents in Survey Nos.282/15 and 282/14 and that he constructed apartments in two blocks consisting of 28 flats and 39 flats in pursuance of the said permissions. The petitioner further averred that when he approached the Sub-Registrar, Bukkapatnam in December, 1997, the Registering Authority refused to register the documents on the ground that the land on which he constructed apartments was an assigned land and that as such no registration is permissible as per the instructions of the Government. The petitioner also averred that he sought for regularization of the sale transaction by paying market value of the land by making an application on 10-06-1998 to the Mandal Revenue Officer and various other authorities. The petitioner’s grievance is that so far no order has been passed in his favour. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Puttaparthy Mandal, Ananthapur District filed a counter-affidavit, in which it is stated that the land over which the petitioner constructed apartments is an assigned land and that he purchased the properties in violation of the conditions of assignment and the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). It is also averred that after construction of apartments, the petitioner sold flats to various persons and having come to know about the illegality committed by the petitioner, a notice was issued on 30-07-2002 under Section 3(1) of the Act calling upon him to show cause why he shall not be summarily evicted from the property in question. The explanation offered by the petitioner was examined in detail and it was found that the petitioner violated the conditions of alienation and purchased the property contrary to the provisions of the Act. In that view of the matter, it is averred that the lands were resumed to Government vide proceedings dated 15-11-2002 of the Mandal Revenue Officer. It is further averred that on the representation of the petitioner, proposals for assignment of the said land on payment of market value were submitted to the District Collector, Ananthapur by fixing the value at Rs.16,000/- per cent, by proceedings dated 10-03-2003 of the Mandal Revenue Officer and the said proposals were returned to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda through the District Collector’s proceedings dated 09-10-2003 as the same were found with certain defects. It is also averred that subsequently the petitioner has not resubmitted the application in the prescribed form. In the reply-affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner resubmitted the application on 05-11-2005 and so far no orders have been passed. At the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) submitted that when once the original assignment was cancelled on the ground of violation of provisions of the Act, and the land is resumed, there is no provision for assignment on market value. He submitted that a Division Bench of this Court held that no such assignment on market value can be made. This contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader runs contrary to the stand taken in the counter-affidavit which was noted hereinabove to the effect that the application was in fact entertained and returned for non- compliance with certain requirements. If the respondents were of the firm view that no such application could be entertained, they should as well have rejected such an application. Be that as it may, if it is the stand of the respondents that law does not permit the petitioner to seek assignment of the land on market value, it is incumbent upon the respondents to dispose of the application in accordance with law. The claim of the petitioner that the application was resubmitted on 05-11- 2005 is not controverted by the respondents. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of. The respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner, which was said to have been resubmitted on 05-11-2005, and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.27258 of 2007 and WVMP No.2610 of 2005 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 17th June, 2008 vrn