IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.9596 of 2001 Between: 1 Thatipamula Veeranjaneyulu S/o. Kesava Rao R/o.20th Ward, Bhagathsinghnagar, Mangalagiri Village and Mandal, Guntur Dist. A.P. 2 Kurapati Yesu S/o. Veeraswamy R/o.19th Ward, Mangalagiri Village and Mandal, Guntur Dist. A.P. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Dist.Collector, Guntur Dist., Guntur, A.P. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Mangalagiri Mandal, Mangalagiri, Guntur Dist., A.P. .....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 under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein not to interfere in the possession and enjoyment of Ac.0-20 Cents of land in the Survey No.134- 3/10 of Mangalagiri Village and Mandal, Guntur District, A.P., bounded on East : passage, North: land of Kadiri Yesupadam, West : Land of Goddam Anjaiah and others, South : Passage after calling for the records. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.PRATTIPATI VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.9596 OF 2001 O R D E R The ﬁrst petitioner in this writ petition claims to have purchased an extent of Ac.0-20 cents of land in Sy.No.134-3/10 of Mangalagiri Village and Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh on 26.10.1983 from the vendee of the second petitioner herein. It is an admitted fact that the second petitioner was assigned this land by the Government. The writ petition is ﬁled apprehending that the Revenue Oﬃcials would initiate action for resumption of the land in occupation of the ﬁrst petitioner and it is prayed that the respondents should be interdicted from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the first petitioner over the subject land. A counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District, the second respondent herein, stating that the second petitioner having been assigned the land admeasuring Ac.0-54 cents in Sy.No.134/10 of Mangalagiri Village by way of a D-Form patta had violated the conditions thereof by selling the same. It is further stated that the alienations made by the second petitioner were in violation of Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, ‘the Act of 1977’) and that the authorities would take necessary action in accordance with the rules for cancellation of the assignment in favour of the second petitioner. Sri N.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that the respondents had not initiated any action in accordance with law for resuming the possession of the land which was purchased by the ﬁrst petitioner and accordingly the ﬁrst petitioner was entitled to protect his possession upon the said land. The scheme of Section 3 of the Act of 1977 would show that though the alienation of assigned land given to a landless poor person is prohibited thereunder, Section 3(5) aﬀords protection to an alienee under such transaction, provided he/she is also a landless poor person who purchased the land in good faith for valuable consideration and is in possession of the said land for the purpose of cultivation or as a house-site. Further, Rule 3 of the Rules framed under Section 9 of the Act of 1977 provides that the District Collector or the Authorised Oﬃcer shall, in the process of evicting the transferee and taking possession of the assigned land, issue a notice to the person who acquired any assigned land in contravention of the provisions of the Act. It is therefore manifest that the respondent authorities are required to put the petitioners on notice before initiating any action for cancellation of the assignment in favour of the second petitioner and for resumption of the possession of the land which is presently with the ﬁrst petitioner. In the light of the protection aﬀorded to the petitioners by law, the respondents cannot interfere with the possession of the land which is with the ﬁrst petitioner without following the due procedure laid down by law. The learned counsel for the petitioners sought to place reliance upon an unreported judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in MANDADA NARASIMHULU V/s. THE TAHASILDAR, CHITTOOR (W.P.No.8016 of 1985, dated 16.09.1988), wherein the learned Judge held that it would be an arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the authorities to seek to resume land on the alleged ground of violation of the assignment conditions after a lapse of thirty years. The learned counsel submitted that in the light of the above judgment, it is not open to the respondent authorities to initiate action in the present case after the lapse of so many years. I am of the considered opinion that this aspect need not be gone into at the present stage in as much as the respondent authorities have not even initiated any action in the matter in spite of the fact that the interim order staying the dispossession of the petitioners from the subject land expired as long as back as in the year 2001. If the respondent authorities choose to initiate any action hereafter, it is always open to the petitioners to raise all contentions before the said authorities, including the aspect dealt with by this Court in MANDADA NARASIMHULU’s case (supra). With the above direction, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ----------------------------- P.V.SANJAY KUMAR,J 23rd OCTOBER, 2008 PGS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.9596 of 2001 23RD OCTOBER, 2008