IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND SIX PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.27727 of 1996 Between: Smt.Nethada Rajeswari. ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, and others. .....RESPONDENTS The Hon’ble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao Writ Petition No.27727 of 1996 Order: This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent- authorities in evicting the writ petitioner from an extent of Ac.3.39 cents of land situated in Budatanapalli Village of Gantyada Mandal, Vizianagaram District, without proper enquiry, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri Balaji Medamalli, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Assignment. The writ petitioner seems to be an unwary individual, who has entered into a sale transaction with respondents 3 to 8 or their predecessors in interest for purchase of land of an extent of Ac.3-39 cents situated in various sub-divisions of Survey No.263 of Budatanapalli Village of Gantyada Mandal, Vizianagaram District. The writ petitioner has acquired right and title over the property in question through a registered sale deed bearing document No.5174/87, dated 21-12-1987. The writ petitioner had pleaded all through that she was a bonafide purchaser and that she had paid valuable consideration to her sellers for acquiring this particular piece of land. The writ petitioner has also asserted that before purchasing the land in question, she made the necessary enquiries with the Revenue establishment to know about the nature of the land. Gaining an impression that it is a zerayathi land and not an assessed waste dry land belonging to the Government, she entered into sale transaction with the respondents 3 to 8 and purchased the land in question. Unfortunately, for her, the Revenue administration has been shaken of its slumber by the intervention of the institution of the Lokayukta. After an elaborate enquiry into the matter, the Lokayukta seems to have passed its order on 11th September, 1996, giving various directions as to what has to be done by the Revenue administration for the purpose of correcting the Government land records with regard to Survey Nos.262 and 263 of Budatanapalli Village from Ryotwari Punja to assessed waste dry land. Pursuant to the orders of the Lokayukta, the first respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer appears to have carried out the corrections in the revenue record by exercising the powers available to him under the Board Standing Order 34D. Thus, unfortunately the writ petitioner was caught in this legal tangle and mess. The State Revenue Administration has since realized that it has assigned some extent of the land purchased by the writ petitioner in favour of the eligible beneficiaries, and that such land is not liable to be transferred or alienated by such assignees. It presses its powers in this regard to Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, (Act 9 of 1977) (for short ‘the Act’). A fiction has been incorporated in Section 3 of the Act, by pointing out that such lands shall never be deemed to have been transferred and that no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land by way of such transfer. Further, any such transfer in contravention of sub-sections (i) and (ii) of Section 3 of the Act are also deemed to be null and void. The consequences of the breach of provisions of Section 3 of the Act have been spelt out in Section 4 of the aforesaid act, which enabled the land to be restored in favour of the original assignee or his legal heir, and where it is not reasonably practicable to restore the land to such assignee or legal heir, to resume the land to the Government to enable it to assign it in favour of landless poor persons in accordance with law. Thus, in the instant case, action has been initiated in terms of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act 9 of 1977 by the second respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Gantyada, by putting the writ petitioner on notice in the prescribed Form-I on 17th August, 1996. The writ petitioner has contested the show cause notice by offering a detailed explanation and pleaded specifically that she is a bonafide purchaser of the land for a valuable consideration and that she has been mislead by the erroneous entries in the land revenue records maintained at the relevant point of time classifying the lands in question as zerayithy lands. Unwary of the corrections that were carried out in the entries of the revenue records subsequent to her purchase, the writ petitioner has asserted that she cannot be divested of the land in question. However, in view of the statutory regimen, the second respondent-the Mandal Revenue Officer rejected the contentions canvassed on behalf of the writ petitioner and passed orders on 14-10-1996, directing the writ petitioner to hand over physical possession of the assigned land in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased original land assignee and also to restore some extent of the land in favour of the Government as well. The order passed by the second respondent on 14-10-1996 has been challenged in the above Writ Petition. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the second respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Gantyada. He asserted that while the original assignees of the land have no right of any manner to transfer or alienate the land in favour of the writ petitioner, the persons from whom, the writ petitioner had acquired the land in question had no valid title at all to pass on the same in favour of the writ petitioner. In Para 6 of the counter-affidavit, it has been asserted that the possession of the land was taken over from the purchasers and the same was also handed over to the original assignees or their legal heirs. Further, it has been pointed out that under Section 4-A of the Act 9 of 1977, any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer can prefer an appeal to the R0evenue Divisional Officer and the writ petitioner had, in fact, preferred such an appeal before the respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, on 16-12-1996. In these set of circumstances, it is only appropriate that the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner on 16-12- 1996 be directed to be decided by the first respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Status quo obtaining as on today with regard to the possession of the land shall, however, be maintained till the disposal of the said appeal. Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. __________________________ (Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J) 22nd November, 2006 LUR