IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15615 of 2002 Between: 1 S.V.S. Srinivasa Raju S/o Lakshmipathi Raju R/o Raparty Village, Pithapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 S.R. Satyanarayana Raju S/o Lakshmipathi Raju R/o Raparty Village, Pithapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 3 S.S.S. Tirupathi Raju S/o Lakshmipathi Raju R/o Raparty Village, Pithapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (ASN.We) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 5 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Makavarapalem, Visakhapatnam District. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.I.VIJAYASHANKAR Counsel for the Respondents : AGP FOR REVENUE (ASSIGNMENTS) The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 27-05-2002 passed by respondent No.1, whereby it conﬁrmed the orders of respondents 5, 4 and 3 respectively. Heard Sri I.Vijayashankar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) and perused the record. The extents of Acs.4.14 cents, Acs.4.08 cents and Acs.4.22 cents in Survey Nos.109/2, 108/2 and 108/3 respectively, which were admittedly assigned lands and purchased by the petitioners were resumed to the Government by respondent No.5 on the ground that the original assignees violated the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “the Act”). The said order was questioned in appeal and revision before respondents 4 and 3 respectively. The order of resumption having been conﬁrmed by the said authorities, the petitioner ﬁled revision before respondent No.1, which also ended in dismissal. A perusal of the orders passed by the hierarchical authorities shows that the assigned lands were sold in favour of the petitioners, which is in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Act. As the petitioners failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 3(5) of the Act, their plea for regularizing the sale was rejected by all the authorities. I do not, therefore, ﬁnd any ground to interfere with the well-considered orders passed by the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, requested this Court to give liberty to the petitioners to proceed against the assignees for recovery of the amounts paid to them. There can be no impediment for the petitioners in law to seek recovery of the said amount subject to the right of the assignees to resist such a move on legally sustainable grounds. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 5th November, 2008 vrn