HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.959 of 2008 Date : 25.04.2011 Between : Smt. Dodla Lakshmamma & another. …..Petitioners And The Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.959 of 2008 ORDER : When interlocutory applications are listed, at the request of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition itself is heard and is being disposed of. The petitioners have filed this writ petition, questioning the notice, dated 07.08.2006, issued in Letter No.B1/725/2006. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners and possessors of land admeasuring 5 acres covered by Sy.No.378/3 of Pratapsingaram village of Ghatkesar Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. It is their case that the said land was originally assigned to one Sri Lakshmaiah Chaprasi, by the then Tahsildar, Hyderabad under Special Lavonia Rules, in File No.D1/8487/62. In earlier round of litigation, when orders for resumption of land were passed, petitioners have filed a writ petition in W.P.No.12347 of 2006, and this Court has allowed the said writ petition, granting liberty to the respondents to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioners. In view of the directions of this Court, the impugned notice, dated 7th August 2006, is issued alleging that the land in question is classified as Gairan Sarkari and it was assigned to one Lakshmaiah in the year 1964 and the same was purchased by the petitioners in violation of the conditions of assignment. To make inquiry on such allegation, the petitioners were asked to be present on 14th of August 2006 at 3 p.m., and at that stage, this writ petition is filed and interim orders were passed by this Court. When the matter has come up on last occasion on 13.04.2011, it was adjourned to enable the learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions as to whether any final orders are passed pursuant to the show cause notice, dated 7th August 2006. When the matter is taken up today, it is submitted that pursuant to the show cause notice, the petitioners have filed their objections, but no final orders are passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. It is the case of petitioners that as the land was assigned under Special Lavonia Rules to the original assignee Sri Lakshmaiah, the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 will not apply. Though it is submitted that the 3rd respondent is not the competent authority to issue such notice, the fact remains that the petitioners have already filed objections to the impugned notice by way of explanation. It is to be seen that in the impugned notice, rights over the property are not determined, and it is only a notice, intimating the petitioners to be present on a particular date for the purpose of conducting inquiry on the allegation whether the assigned land is sold in violation of the conditions of patta or not. As much as it is stated that the petitioners have already filed their objections to the impugned notice, and further, as it is stated that no final orders are passed pursuant to the said notice, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the 3rd respondent to proceed with the inquiry by fixing a further date of hearing, by intimating to the petitioners, to examine whether the purchase by the petitioners is in violation of the conditions of patta or not. I am sure the 3rd respondent will also examine the contention of petitioners that there was no violation of the conditions of patta, as the land was assigned under Special Lavonia Rules. As it is stated that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question and final orders are not yet passed, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to proceed with the inquiry with a further direction to the respondents not to interfere or dispossess the petitioners from the land in question till appropriate final orders are passed and communicated to the petitioners. Subject to the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 25th April 2011 ajr