IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 14606 of 2009 Between: 1 Gorli (Polineti) Venkata Manga Varalakshmi, W/o. Manikyam, R/o. Lachireddypalem Village, Routhulapudi Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 Gorli (Kattamuri) Kanaka Naga Varalakshmi, W/o. Veera Prakash Rao, R/o. Lachireddypalem Village, Routhulapudi Mandal, East Godavari District. 3 Ginjala Gangatalli, W/o. Pedda Demudu, R/o. Lachireddypalem Village, Routhulapudi Mandal, East Godavari District. 4 Avupati Rambabu, S/o. Veera Acharulu, R/o. Lachireddypalem Village, Routhulapudi Mandal, East Godavari District. 5 Chitra Latcha Rao, S/o. Prakash Rayudu, R/o. Lachireddypalem Village, Routhulapudi Mandal, East Godavari District. 6 Gadi Govinda Rayudu, S/o. Ramayya, R/o. Lachireddypalem Village, Routhulapudi Mandal, East Godavari District. 7 Attili Chinnayyamma, W/o. Chinna Rao, R/o. Lachireddypalem Village, Routhulapudi Mandal, East Godavari District. 8 Karamuri Parvathi, W/o. Late Varahala Babu, R/o. Lachireddypalem Village, Routhulapudi Mandal, East Godavari District. 9 Karamuri Padmavathi, W/o. Karumari Govinda Rao, R/o. Lachireddypalem Village, Routhulapudi Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Routhulapudi Mandal, East Godavari District. 3 The Tahsildar, Routhulapudi Mandal, East Godavari 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in passing order Rc.A/167/08 dt. 02-4-2009 without following due course of law, as illegal, arbitrary, consequently not to dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands Counsel for the Petitioners: MRS.V.SESHA KUMARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.14606 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER The nine (9) petitioners challenge the order of the 3rd respondent bearing reference No. R.C.A/167/08 dated.02.04.2009 whereby they are informed that the assigned lands of different extents in the several survey numbers of Latchireddypalem village, Routhulapudi Mandal, East Godavari District purchased by the petitioners from the original assignees of the lands, a purchase by the petitioners and the alienation by the original assignees being prohibited under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act,1977 ( for short “the Act”), have been resumed and that after a due survey of the lands they would be handed over to the original assignees. In para.3 of the writ petition, the petitioners equivocally admit to have purchased these lands without knowledge that the lands were assigned lands, whose alienation is prohibited under the provisions of the Act. They assert to have purchased the lands by paying valuable consideration to the assignees. They also assert that the original assignees without indicating that they are assigned lands had deceived the petitioners and sold the lands to them. They purchased the lands under registered sale deeds executed by the original assignees. Pattedar pass books and title deeds have also been issued to the petitioners by the revenue authorities and the petitioners claim to be paying the land revenue and taxes to the State on the lands in question; to have invested huge money and hard labour to bring the lands to cultivation and have raised mango and cashew trees. On the basis of a complaint, the 3rd respondent issued notices in Form 1 and 2 to the original assignees and the petitioners as well. The petitioners received the notices and submitted their representations to the proposal for resumption of the lands under the provisions of the Act. In the representations the petitioners claimed ignorance, poverty and bonafide purchase of the lands and investment of huge amounts and hard labour for bringing the lands to cultivation and have further represented for grant of assignment and issue of consequential pattas to them in respect of these lands. It is the case of the petitioners as vehemently asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that without favourably considering the petitioners’ representation for assignment and grant of pattas of these lands the 3rd respondent has arbitrarily passed the impugned order directing resumption of the lands. This is the singular grievance in this writ petition. On the facts stated, on the pleadings on record and on the assertions made in the court no case in law is made out for interference by this Court. The Act clearly prohibits transfer by way of sale of assigned lands. The purchase by the petitioners is therefore in transgression of the clear and specific provisions of the Act. The consequences of such transgression are also legislatively prescribed namely the resumption of the lands from the purchasers who have in violation of the provisions of the Act purchased the lands from the assignees and if a case is made out as per the provisions of the Act, restoration of possession to the original assignees. The petitioners do not assert that the original assignees are not entitled to restoration of possession of these lands under the provisions of the Act. The petitioners assert to have represented to the respondents for assignment of these lands to the petitioners themselves and for grant of pattas to them in view of the fact that they purchased the lands bonafide and after paying due consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioners would strenuously urge that the respondents acted arbitrarily in not considering the petitioners’ representation. None of these considerations commend acceptance by this Court. The respondents have no power, authority or jurisdiction to consider the petitioners’ representations for assignment of these lands to them. The provisions of the Act totally eclipse any discretion of the executive agencies. It is trite principle in a constitutional scheme that executive power is subservient to legislative policy. The Act clearly declares the policy that an alienation made in violation of the provisions of the Act is void, in-operative and that such alienated lands ought to be resumed from the purchasers and considered for restoration of possession to the original assignees if they are eligible under the provisions of the Act. No discretion is left in the executive to consider the claim of the petitioners for assignment of these lands. In the circumstances the petitioners’ grievance that the respondents have not considered their representations is of no consequence and there is no claim that can be legally taken cognizance of. On the aforesaid analysis the writ petition is without merits and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. The petitioners are at liberty to make representations to the respondents for assignment of other lands. Such representations if made may be considered by the respondents in accordance with the lawful discretion available with the respondents on this aspect. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 22nd JULY 2009 *TSNR