IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 23827 of 2004 Between: Boyapati Suseelamma, W/o. Dwarakaiah, R/o. Dundigam Village, Dagadarthi Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Nellore, Nellore District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, Nellore District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, DAgadarthi Village & Mandal, Nellore 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 issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in evicting the petitioner from the land to an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No. 444/1 situated at Dundigam Village, Dagadarthi Mandal, Nellore District, without giving any notice and without conducting any enquiry, is arbitrary, unreasonable and accordingly set aside the impugned order passed by 3rd Respondent made in Rc.No. B 248/2004 dated 10- 09-2004 and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of my land to an extent of Ac.4.00 cents situated in Sy.No. 444/1 of Dundigam Village, Dagadarthi mandal, Nellore District to pass such other and further orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.TUHIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 23827 of 2004 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner seeks a declaration that the action of the 3rd respondent in evicting the petitioner from land in an extent of Ac.4.00 in Sy.No.444/1, Dundigam village, Dagadarthi Mandal, Nellore District, without a notice, opportunity or enquiry, is illegal and seeks invalidation of the order of the 3rd respondent in RC No.B 248 of 2004 dated.10-09-2004 with a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. According to the petitioner, she is a landless poor person and had applied for assignment of a government poramboke land. The petitioner admits that the 3rd respondent did not assign any land to her. The petitioner thereafter purchased the schedule land from one Vusurupati Guravaiah in whose favour the government had assigned this land in 1993 for valuable consideration. She claims to have invested substantial amount for developing the land. She claims entitlement to protection under Section.3(5) of the A.P. Assigned Lands(Prohibition of Transfers) Act,1977. While so, she states, without any notice or opportunity, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order in contravention of the procedure mandated under the Act. The impugned order of the 3rd respondent records that one V.Guravaiah resident of Dundigam village was assigned the land in question by the 3rd respondent and during verification of the assigned land in the village it is learnt that the land is under the factual possession and enjoyment of the petitioner, who is learnt to have purchased the land from the original assignee Guravaiah, as such the transfer is prohibited under the provisions of the Act; that a notice was issued to the alienee why she should not be summarily evicted on 20-08-2004 and to the original assignee as well. The alienee has not submitted her explanation nor did the original assignee submit any explanation. In the circumstances the prima facie assumption in the notice that the alienee had obtained possession by transfer from the original assignee in contravention of the provisions of the Act, is established. The 3rd respondent’s order also records that the original assignee belongs to a Scheduled Caste community and is also having other land in an extent of Ac.4.13 cents in Sy.No.332/2 of Dundigam village and therefore the schedule land is resumed to the Government. This Court granted interim stay of dispossession of the petitioner from the land in question on 22-12-2004. On behalf of the respondents, the 3rd respondent has filed a counter-affidavit. To the extent relevant and material the counter-affidavit states that the petitioner purchased the schedule land from a Scheduled Caste assignee contrary to the provisions of the Act; notice was issued and served on the petitioner as well as the original assignee soliciting their objections. Having received the respective notices on 20-08-2004 neither the petitioner nor the original assignee responded. In the circumstances the answering respondent asserts to have passed the impugned order dated.10-09- 2004 resuming the land to the Government. Though the counter was filed on 08-02-2005 categorically asserting that notice dated.14-08-2004 was issued and served on the petitioner-assignee on 20- 08-2004, the petitioner has not chosen to file any affidavit rebutting this assertion in the counter. In the circumstances above no violation of fair procedure is established and no case is made out for grant of any relief. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated.22-12-2004 stands dissolved. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 11th APRIL 2008 TSNR