IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.535 OF 2011 DATED:25.7.2011 Between: Boorsu Mallakka … Appellant And The Revenue Divisional Officer Madanapalle Division Madanapalle, Chittoor District and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.535 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) Claiming to be an assignee of 4 Acs. 47 cents and 52 cents comprising survey No.568/1 and 569/1 respectively, situate at Matlivaripalli, an application was filed by the appellant – writ petitioner’s father, namely, Akkulappa, before the Revenue Divisional Officer (respondent 1), seeking a restraint to be placed on the respondents 2 to 9 from causing any interference thereof, which begot an interim relief to her favour but lost its force by dismissal of the main application vide order dated 6-2-2010, consequently a writ petition but of no avail to her because of violation of the conditions of the order of assignment, traceable to the sale deed No.468 dated 17.6.1969 executed by her in favour of one Raju Venkatramanar. In view of the violation unveiled by the registered sale deed itself, the assignment was cancelled vide proceedings No.D2/4003/72 dated 28-8-1972 and the land in question was assigned by a separate order dated 26-9-1972 to one Seetha Ramana, father of respondent No.2 – Raju Venkatramana and as per the finding of fact, returned by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the said assignee continues in possession ever since it was assigned to him. Nothing is brought to our notice which would persuade us to say anything to the contrary. Before us it is the report of the Tehsildar that is pressed into service to contend that the record of 1972 was not traceable. Suffice it to say that non availability of the record cannot render the order of cancellation of the assignment invalid. That apart there is no denying by the writ petitioner that the land assigned was alienated by her through a registered sale deed which makes the violation of the conditions of the assignment manifest. Viewed thus, writ appeal is dismissed. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 25-7-2011 B. Narsinga Rao