IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.3797 of 2008 Between: Kandi Laxmamma W/o Kandhi Narsimha Reddy R/o Mucherla Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildar, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Collector, Ranga Reddy district, Collector Office at Lakdikapool. Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by granting injunction order and directing to the respondents, their agents representatives or any person, claiming on behalf of the respondents, not to interfere into the peaceful possession of the petitioner's agriculture land Suvey No. 50/14, admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 2-20 gts, situated at Mucharla Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District without following the due process of law for the sake of to take possession of her husband in Sruvey No. 50/11/EE admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 4-05 gts in pursuance of the proceedings of the 1st respondent NO. B/972/2005, dt 09-2006 which was served on petitioner's husband on 10-2-2008 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MOHD.GHOUSEUDDIN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.3797 of 2008 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that she purchased the land admeasuring Ac.2-20 gts. in Sy.No.50/14 situated at Mucherla Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, through registered Sale Deed dated 29-05-1997 from one Gaddam Anantha Reddy, who purchased the said land from one Nagilla Narayana through registered Sale Deed, dated 06-12-1995. From the date of purchase, the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land. It is stated that her name was also mutated in the revenue records vide proceedings ROR No.341/96 and pattadar pass books and title deeds were also issued. While so, the 1st respondent issued notice in Form-I to the husband of the petitioner namely Kandi Narasimha Reddy stating that the land admeasuring Ac.4-5 gts. in Sy.No.50/11/EE was assigned in favour of Nagilla Venkataiah, who sold the said land in favour of the husband of the petitioner and accordingly asked him to submit explanation as to why the said land shall not be resumed. The husband of the petitioner submitted explanation to the said show-cause notice. Thereafter, the 1st respondent passed resumption order in proceedings No.B/972/05, dated 12-09-2006, resuming the land admeasuring Ac.4-5 gts. in Sy.No.50/11/EE on the ground that the original assignee violated the provisions of Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Aggrieved by the said order, the husband of the petitioner filed W.P.No.1058 of 2007 before this court and this court dismissed the said writ petition as withdrawn with liberty to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer by way of filing an appeal. It is stated that the husband of the petitioner filed an appeal and the appeal is pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that she is nothing to do with the subject matter of the land admeasuring Ac.4-5 gts. in Sy.No.50/11/EE, as she purchased the land admeasuring Ac.2-20 gts. in Sy.No.50/14. The petitioner is tracing out the title from Nagilla Narayana. Whether the land admeasuring Ac.2-20 gts. in Sy.No.50/14 is assigned in favour of Nagilla Narayana is not known. However, the show- cause notice and the resumption orders are relating to Sy.No.50/11/EE in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.4-5 gts., but not in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2-20 gts. in Sy.No.50/14. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents submits that in fact Nagilla Narayana is an assignee of Sy.No.50/14, but not Sy.No.50/11/EE. However, by mistake, it was wrongly mentioned in the show-cause notice as well as resumption order as 50/11/EE instead of 50/14. It is stated that the said land was taken under a cover of panchanama on 10-10-2006. As long as the mistake is rectified and the revised orders are passed, I am of the opinion that under the guise of the impugned orders, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed from the land admeasuring Ac.2-20 gts. in Sy.No.50/14. However, without issuing any notice and without passing any final orders, taking away the said land is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac.2-20 gts. in Sy.No.50/14 situated at Mucherla Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without following due process of law. However, any action taken pursuant to the impugned orders, cannot be approved and legalized. However, it is open for the respondents to take appropriate action against the petitioner, if the land admeasuring Ac.2-20 gts. in Sy.No.50/14 is an assigned land, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 25-02-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}