THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.20685 of 2002 ORDER: Questioning the memo issued by the 2nd respondent, directing his subordinates to take over possession of the lands which were assigned in favour of the petitioners, the present Writ Petition is filed. In the memo dated 25.09.2002, the 2nd respondent noted that the 1st respondent had enclosed a list of revision petitions disposed of under the Estate Abolition Act, and that he was directed to take possession of the lands and report further action in the matter. The 2nd respondent in turn directed the Deputy Surveyor to take over possession of the lands, to implement the changes in the village records and report compliance. The 1st petitioner was assigned an extent of Ac.2.39 cts of wet land in Karijatha village of Narayanapet Taluq; the 2n d petitioner was granted an extent of Ac.4.20 cts in the same village and the 3rd petitioner’s wife was assigned an extent of Ac.2.43 cts in the same village. The petitioners would assert that they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the lands assigned in their favour; pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued in their favour, and their names were mutated in the Record of Rights in terms of Section 5 of A.P.Rights in land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971. It is their case that the impugned memo dated 25.09.2002 was not even served on them, and mere dismissal of certain revision petitions, under the Estates Abolition Act, did not justify the petitioners being dispossessed of the lands in question, more so since petitioners 1 and 3 were assigned the said lands in the year 1961, and petitioner No.2 was assigned the said lands in the year 1978. In the counter-affidavit, the fact that petitioners were assigned lands is admitted. It is, however, stated that a claim petition was filed by Smt. K. Rukminamma, the mother of petitioners 1 and 2; the said claim petition was rejected on 14.10.1986; aggrieved thereby she filed a revision petition before the Director of Settlements who dismissed the said petition on 24.10.1991; she again filed a revision petition under Section 7(d) of the Estates Abolition Act before the Commissioner, Survey and Settlements who remanded the matter to the Joint Collector-cum- Settlement Officer, Nellore who heard the matter, and reserved the case for final orders. It is further stated that the 1st petitioner was issued a notice for cancellation of patta; first petitioner’s husband had an extent of Ac.6.10 cts of wet land in his name, and Smt. K. Rukminamma had an extent of Ac.9.78 cts of patta land in her name in Karijatha village; Sri K. Pattabhirami Reddy and his sons were living together; the joint family possessed an extent of Ac.15.88 cts of wet land; and, hence, the petitioners who were the sons of Sri K. Pattabhirami Reddy were not eligible for grant of assignment patta or for enjoying the land assigned to late Kodembaka Subbamma. A Reply affidavit is filed denying the averments in the counter-affidavit. It is wholly unnecessary to make any reference to the averments therein since the respondents themselves have admitted in the counter affidavit that the petitioners were assigned lands in the year 1961 and 1978 respectively. Having assigned lands in their favour, it is only if such an assignment is cancelled can action be taken to resume the land. It is not even the case of the respondents that any action has been initiated against the petitioners for cancellation of the assignments granted earlier in their favour. When the assignment granted in the petitioners’ favour continues to remain in force, the respondents are not entitled to dispossess them merely on the ground that certain revision petitions were dismissed, more so since the claim made even by the petitioners' mother has since been remanded to the Joint Collector who has not, as yet, passed any orders thereupon. The impugned order is ex facie illegal and is, accordingly, quashed. Needless to state that this order shall not preclude the respondents from taking action, if they so choose, for cancellation of the assignments. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:03.02.2011 MRKR