IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.3724 of 2008 Between: D.Uma Shankar S/o.D.Gangi Setty R/o.51/30-3,Kothapeta Raychoti,Kadapa Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dist Collector Kadpa Dist 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer(Thasildar) Chinthakommadine(M) Kadapa Dist .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with our peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property in S.No.135/5,135/6,135/1(A) 135/3,135/2 of an total extent of Ac.07-60 cents situated Cherlopalle(V) Chinthakommadine (M) Kadapa Dist is arbitrary illegal unconstitutional being violative of articles 14,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to not to interfere with the schedule property in Sy.No.135/5,135/6,135/1(A) 135/3,135/2 of an total extent of Ac.07-60 cents situated Cherlopalle(V) Of Chinthakommadine(M) Kadapa Dist. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.3724 of 2008 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the land admeasuring Ac.7-60 cents in various sub-divided Sy.No.135 situated at Cherlopalle Village, Chinthakommadine Mandal, Kadapa District, from his vendors C.Shivarami Reddy and C.Bala Ankireddy vide registered Sale Deed Document No.286, dated 15-10-2007, and from the date of purchase, he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the respondents are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land without following due process of law. On instructions, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents submits that the land in question has been assigned in favour of the following landless poor persons:- Sl.No. S.No. Extent Name of the Assignee DKT No & Date 1 2 3 4 5 1 135/3 2.20 M.Pullaiah 172/75, Dt:16.11.67 2 135/1A 3.20 P.Narayana 177/75, dt:06.11.75 3 135/5 1.00 P.Narayana 176/75, dt:16.11.65 4 135/6 0.80 P.Narayana 176/75, dt:16.11.65 5 135/2 0.40 P.Narayana 176/75, dt:16.11.65 Total: 7.60 It is stated that the aforesaid five original assignees alienated the said land in favour of Sri C.Bala Anki Reddy and C.Siva Rami Reddy, who inturn sold the said land in favour of the petitioner. As the said land is not alienable but only heritable, Form-I notice was issued to the original assignees and Form-II notice was issued to the purchasers vide Ref.B/617/07, dated 25-03- 2007 and as no explanation has been received either from the original assignees or the purchasers, the resumption order has been passed and the said land has been handed over to the Municipal Corporation, Kadapa vide proceedings in Ref.No.B/449/07, dated 29-01-2008. It is not known when the resumption orders have been passed. However, the show-cause notice is issued on 25-03-2007 i.e., prior to purchase of the said land by the petitioner and, therefore, the question of giving any notice to the petitioner does not arise. However, the notices have been issued to the vendors of the petitioner. Even, the said vendors have not filed any explanation. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said resumption order, he can also question the same by way of filing an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 4-A (1) of A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is open for the petitioner to obtain resumption order said to have been passed in Ref.B/617/07 and question the same before the Appellate Authority. However, status-quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained for a period of two weeks, so as to enable the petitioner to receive copy of the resumption order and file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 22-02-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}