IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4088 of 2005 Between: 1 Mallappa, s/o Sayanna, r/o Nagaram Village, Devarakadra Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 2 Abdulanna, s/o Chennappa, r/o Nagaram Village, Devarakadra Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar. 2 The District Revenue Officer, Mahabubnagar. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Devarakadra Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 5 Sri Eshwaraiah, s/o Kurmaiah, r/o Nagaram Village, Devarakadra Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.ROY REDDY Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for respondent No.5: None appeared The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 08-02-2005 of respondent No.1. The petitioners, claiming to be the purchasers from the original assignee of the land admeasuring Acs.2.25 guntas situated at Nagaram Village, Devarakonda Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, got the said land assigned under an order passed under Section 3(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “the 1977 Act”) by an order of respondent No.4, Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, passed on 29-07-1993. A revision petition ﬁled by respondent No.5 under Section 166- B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli having been dismissed, he ﬁled a writ petition in this Court, which was disposed of with liberty to respondent No.5 to ﬁle an appeal under Section 4-A (2) of the 1977 Act. Accordingly, respondent No.5 ﬁled an appeal. His claim was that he was the landless poor person and the purchaser from the original assignee, in recognition of which he was granted assignment under Section 3(5) of the 1977 Act in the year 1998 and that therefore, restoration of the land in favour of the petitioners on the premise that they were the purchasers from the original assignee was irregular and improper. Respondent No.1, who evidently called for reports from the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Devarakonda and Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Narayanpet allowed the appeal ﬁled by respondent No.5. In his order, respondent No.1 observed that the reports of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Devarakonda and Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Narayanpet showed that the petitioners indulged in manipulation of the ﬁle in collusion with the staﬀ of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer’s Oﬃce and the Village Administrative Oﬃcer of Peddarajamoor Village and made it appear as if they have purchased the land in the year 1993. On the basis of the said reports, he held that the regularization order said to have been passed by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Devarakonda on 29-07-1993 was false and fabricated one. In the writ petition, nothing is pointed out by the petitioners to show that the ﬁnding of respondent No.1 regarding fabrication of order dated 29-07-1993 was incorrect or the same suﬀered from any error warranting interference by this Court. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 29th August, 2008 vrn