THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITON No.31934 OF 2011 ORDER: The action of the respondents in initiating action against the petitioner, under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, is under challenge in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary and illegal. The order under challenge is the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 19.09.2010 whereby an extent of Ac.1.33 cts in Sy. No.2230/3 was resumed to the Government under Section 4(a) (1) (c) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and the subject lands so resumed were recorded as A.W. Dry in the village accounts. The petitioner was also informed that an appeal lay against the said order to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The only ground on which these proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 19.09.2010 are under challenge in this Writ Petition is that the petitioner purchased the subject lands in the year 2005 from her vendor from one Parasamal, S/o Chunnilaljee who, in turn, had purchased it from his vendor who, in turn, had purchased the subject lands from the original assignee. The petitioner’s grievance is that no notice was served on her, and the notice was merely tagged on to a wooden pole erected on the subject lands. Learned Counsel would refer to the impugned proceedings dated 19.09.2010 which records that, as the petitioner was residing in Vijayawada, the Registered Post notice was sent to her address at Vijayawada which was returned to his oﬃce on 15.09.2010 unserved; and, as such, notice was served by substituted service on 16.09.2010 tagging the notice to a wooden poll erected on the subject lands. Sri B. Hanumantha Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, in the absence of any notice being served on the petitioner, the entire proceedings culminating in the proceedings impugned in this Writ Petition dated 19.09.2010 is without jurisdiction, and is liable to be set aside. On being asked as to whether the address given in the registered sale deed was the petitioner’s earlier address at Vijayawada, Learned Counsel would submit in the affirmative. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had informed the respondents of her change in address to Nellore. Since the notice was sent to the petitioner at her earlier address at Vijayawada, as shown in the registered sale deed, and as there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had made the respondent aware of the change of her address, the action of the respondents in resorting to substituted service cannot be faulted. While the Learned Counsel would also deny receiving the copy of the impugned proceedings dated 19.09.2010, (a copy of which is ﬁled as part of the material papers along with this Writ Petition), on being asked as to how he had obtained the said copy, and as to whether there were any averments in the writ aﬃdavit in this regard, Learned Counsel would fairly state that the writ aﬃdavit is, indeed, silent on this aspect. As a copy of the impugned proceedings dated 19.09.2010 has been ﬁled along with the Writ Petition and, in the absence of information being furnished as to how the petitioner had obtained a copy thereof even without a copy being allegedly served on her, I see no reason to exercise discretion to entertain the Writ Petition. Leaving it open to the petitioner to avail such other remedies as are available to her in law, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Date: 03.12.2011 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR