IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:9175 of 2000 Between: B. Narasaiah S/o. Lachaiah R/o. Pakal Village, Mandal : Kodakandal, Warangal District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector Warangal District, Warangal. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Jangeon, Warangal District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer cum Land Acquisition Officer Kodakandla Mandal, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.3 not to acquire the land admeasuring Ac.1.00 comprised in Survey No.100/56 of Kodakandla Village and Mandal, Warangal District, without initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and perused the record. The petitioner claims that he purchased the above-mentioned land from Mr. Sathaiah, Son of Ellayya in 1983 under a registered sale deed, dated 11.03.1983. He ﬁled this writ petition questioning the attempt on the part of respondent No.3 to take away the said land from his possession without initiating acquisition proceedings. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is inter alia stated that the said land belongs to the Government and was originally assigned to Velupula Sathaiah and that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer cancelled the said assignment vide his order, dated 03.05.1997 and handed over the same along with other land to the Agricultural Market Committee, Kodakandla in 1997 itself. Respondent No.3, therefore, maintained that as the land purchased by the petitioner being an assigned land and the assignment having been cancelled, there is no need for the respondents to initiate proceedings under the Act. No reply aﬃdavit is ﬁled controverting the averments contained in the counter-affidavit. From the contents of the counter-aﬃdavit, it is clear that the land claimed by the petitioner was resumed after cancelling the assignment made in favour of the petitioner’s vendor. Unless the petitioner questions the said order of resumption, he cannot assert any right over the said land. Therefore, I do not ﬁnd any ground to direct the respondents to initiate proceedings under the Act for acquiring the said land. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. Liberty is given to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy against the order of resumption of the land in question. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 5th NOVEMBER, 2008. kvni