IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5402 of 2009 Between: Smt. G.Narasamma, W/o. Late G.Jangaiah, R/o. H.No.1-8-26/1, NIRD Road, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District At Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, West Attapur, Hyderguda, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The Tahasildar, Shamshabad Mandal, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy 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 issue writ or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings No.B/1478/2006 of the 3rd respondent in resumption of the assigned land of the petitioner in Ac.2.32 gts. of land in Sy.No. 78/E of Kothwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of the provisions of the A.P., Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 and consequently direct the respondents for restoration of the land admeasuring Ac.2.32 gts, of land in Sy.No.78/E of Kothwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to the petitioner herein, and pass Counsel for Petitioner: MR.B.SESIBUSHAN RAO Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The husband of the petitioner by name G. Jangaiah was assigned an extent of Ac.2.32 gts., of land in S.No.78(E) of Kothwalguda Village. The said Jangaiah said to have died in the year 2002. The Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal, the third respondent herein, initiated proceedings about Acs.20.00 of land in S.No.78/E under A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). According to him the land has accrued to the Government as surplus under the A.P. Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act and the assignees, including Jangaiah have alienated the land. It was also observed that M/s. Padmavathi Metal Industry represented by Sri Mohammed Shabeer had purchased the land. After issuing notice to the purchaser, the third respondent cancelled the assignment directing resumption of land to the Government. The petitioner challenged the same contending that she was not issued any notice, and the third respondent proceeded as though Jangaiah was alive and no efforts were made to send notice to any of the assignees. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent. The impugned order, dated 27.11.2006 was also the subject mater of W.P.No.2172 of 2009 filed by the fourth respondent. This Court disposed of the said writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner therein to avail the remedy of appeal. The same order is challenged to a limited extent in this writ petition. It relates to Acs.2.32 gts of land assigned to Jangaiah. It is fundamental that notice has to be issued to the assignee before any proceedings under Section 4 of the Act are initiated. The impugned order does not even make a mention that any notices were issued to the assignees. In the instant case, the original assignee died. Therefore, notice ought to have been issued to the legal representatives of the deceased assignee. On this short ground, the impugned order relating to Acs.2.32 gts., of land assigned to Jangaiah is set aside. The petitioner as well as the fourth respondent shall submit their explanation/ representation within a period of two weeks from today. It shall be open to the third respondent to pass fresh orders duly taking into account the explanation/representation that may be submitted by the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) 31st March, 2009 Js.