THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7558 of 2009 ORDER: The father-in-law of the petitioner, by name, Dharavat Manjya, purchased an extent of Ac.0.15 guntas of land in survey No.142 from one Mr.Chintha Peeraiah and an extent of Ac.0.25 guntas of land from Mr.Kastala Peda Biksham, situated at Yedulapuram Revenue Village, Khammam Rural Mandal, through registered sale deeds, dated 21.02.1983. The petitioner is said to have purchased the same from her father-in-law. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner filed O.S.No.722 of 2007 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, against the revenue authorities, for the relief of temporary injunction. I.A.No.1376 of 2007, filed in the suit, is said to have been dismissed. However, the petitioner withdrew the suit. This Writ Petition is filed alleging that the respondents are trying to dispossess her from the land, on the ground that it was assigned and that the purchase, made by her is, in violation of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner contends that no notice was issued to her or her father-in-law and the respondents are trying to resume the land straight away. At the stage of Admission, learned Government Pleader for Revenue obtained instructions. It is stated that the land in survey No.142 was assigned in favour of nine persons to the extent of Acs.0.30 guntas and in one case, one acre, in the year 1970 and on finding that the conditions of assignment were violated, they were resumed to the Government vide proceedings, dated 01.06.2003. The name of Chinta Peeraiah is also mentioned therein. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe. Her father-in-law is said to have purchased assigned land from different persons. Assuming that the transfer of assigned land is violative of provisions of the Act, it is mandatory that notice be issued to the transferee, before the land is resumed to Government. A perusal of the order, dated 01.06.2003, discloses that there was not even an allegation that the land was transferred and the resumption was ordered, solely on the ground that the land was not brought under cultivation. The rights of the transferees cannot be defeated, without conducting enquiry as contemplated under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Therefore, the order of resumption cannot have the effect of defeating the rights of the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the impugned memo is set aside. The respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the land in question, except by initiating the proceedings under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:17.04.2009. GJ