THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR W.P.No.19252 of 2011 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) The petitioner, who is a stone crusher and quarrying operator, questions the interim order of the 1st respondent-Lokayuktha, dated 19-04-2011, and the alleged consequential order of the 3rd respondent- Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in proceedings No.C3/733/2011, dated 16-06-2011, cancelling ‘No Objection Certificate’ issued in favour of the petitioner. The docket order passed by the 1st respondent-Lokayuktha, dated 19-04-2011, reads as follows: “A report dt.2.4.2010 is submitted by the District Collector, R.R.District, stating that pursuant to the orders of this Institution action was initiated by the Tahsildar in conformity with the directions given by the District Collector and orders of resumption was passed in respect of the land in Sy.No.154/4 of Dirsampally village, Doma Mandal. The report, however, does not show as to the cancellation of NOC as was proposed by the District Collector nor any criminal cases are stated to have been registered against the persons who produced fake and forged documents not only for obtaining pattadar pass book and title deeds, but also for obtaining NOC for establishing a crusher in the land in question. Hence, the District Collector, R.R.District, is directed to take further action for compliance of the directions of this Institution as well as in conformity with the directions issued by the District Collector to the Tahsildar, Doma Mandal and submit as to the compliance by the next date of hearing. List after two months. Call on 11-07-2011”. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, passed the order, dated 16.06.2011, stating that the 6th respondent-Tahsildar, Doma Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, reported that one K.Rukkamaiah-7th respondent produced false and fabricated assignment patta Certificate No.C/804/2005, dated 20-08-2005, and pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the land in Sy.No.154/4 and that the said land was taken on lease by the petitioner herein from the 7th respondent and basing on the said lease, the petitioner obtained NOC from the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, vide proceedings, dated 17-07- 2008, suppressing the fact that the said land is an assigned land. Therefore, the 6th respondent has requested the 3rd respondent to initiate action under the provisions of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1977 (for short “the Act”), by issuing notices to all the concerned and resume the land to an extent of Ac.2-33 gts. in Sy.No.154/4 situated at Dirsampally Village, Doma Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, into the Government custody as per the rules and procedure laid down under the provisions of the Act. Further, the 6th respondent has also requested to cancel the NOC issued in favour of the petitioner. In the said circumstances, the NOC issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the 3rd respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that assignment in favour of the original assignee was not cancelled and neither the assignee, the transferee nor the lessee, who is in possession of the said land, have not been given any notice and, therefore, the impugned orders are illegal and unsustainable. In the instant case, though a perusal of the impugned orders indicates that no notice was issued to the petitioner for cancellation of NOC, which was issued for establishment of the Crusher, the records produced by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would go to show that the action has been initiated under the provisions of the Act by issuing notices not only to the original assignee viz., one M.Basappa, S/o.Lachaiah, R/o.Dirsampally village, but also to the alleged transferee one Ram Singh, who is said to have purchased the said land in the year 1991, and also to the petitioner herein. The notice issued to the original assignee M.Basappa could not be served, as he was not residing in Dirsampally village and as such, the same was displayed in the panchayath notice board of Dirsampally village by obtaining signatures of the witnesses to that effect. In response to the said notice, the legal heirs of the purchaser filed an objection petition and the same was examined with reference to the revenue records from 1991 to 2010. It is also stated that the petitioner herein is in actual possession of the land in question and it refused to receive the notice issued to it, and as such, the notice was displayed at its office by obtaining the signatures to that effect and, thereafter, the resumption order, dated 11-02-2011, was passed by the 6th respondent directing the Mandal Revenue Inspector to resume the land into Government custody. The file further discloses that after passing resumption order, dated 11-02-2011, the original assignee M.Basappa filed W.P.No.4893 of 2011 and this court on 28-02-2011, while issuing notice, granted interim order in WPMP.No.6066 of 2011 directing the respondents therein not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment over the subject land except in accordance with the due procedure laid down by law. Admittedly, by the date of passing of the said interim order, dated 28-02-2011, the resumption order was already passed on 11- 02-2011 by following the due process of law. Subsequently, questioning the resumption order dated 11.02.2011, the original assignee M.Basappa also filed statutory appeal under Section 4-A of the Act before the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District, and the same is pending, as is evident from notice, dated 16-03-2011, a copy of which is placed before this court. Thus, it is incorrect to state that the said assigned land was not resumed and that no notices were issued either to the assignee or to the transferee or to the petitioner. In fact, the notices have been issued to all of them. We are of the opinion that Ram Singh is not entitled to purchase the assigned land and, therefore, the transfer of the said land in favour of Ram Singh itself is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act. Further, the Ram Singh or his son has no right to give the land in question/assigned land on lease to the petitioner, and the petitioner has no right to obtain NOC in its favour and its possession over the assigned land is illegal and in contravention of the Act, and as such, it cannot claim any right over the said property as lessee. As the assigned land, which was allotted in favour of the original assignee M.Basappa itself has been resumed, the alleged transfer of the land in favour of Ram Singh and the alleged transfer of the land in favour of the petitioner is illegal and unsustainable. Therefore, the 3rd respondent has rightly cancelled the NOC issued in favour of the petitioner, and as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, as the revenue authorities are bound to take action in accordance with the provisions of the Act without any reference to the orders of the Lokayuktha, and whether Lokayuktha pointed out any lapses on the part of the revenue authorities or not, it is the duty of the revenue authorities to take action in accordance with law and see that the assigned lands shall not be misused or misutilized by rich landlords like the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 21-07-2011 Prv