THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7544 of 2008 ORDER: Today though W.V.M.P.No.2969 of 2008 in W.P.M.P.No.9924 of 2008 is listed under the caption ‘for Interlocutory’, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal, at the request of the learned counsel on either side. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in seeking to dispossess him from the land admeasuring Ac.2.20 gts. and Ac.1.20 gts. in Sy.No.64 situated at Naspur village, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District, without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the on his claim as a landless poor person, he was assigned the land in question by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mancherial, vide his proceedings in Rc.No.B/3715/2000 dated 16.04.2000. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the patta granted in his favour is valid, the respondents, without following due process of law, are trying to dispossess him from the subject land on the ground that the land is required for public purpose. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is admitted that vide proceedings dated 16.04.2000 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mancherial, the petitioner was granted patta in respect of the subject land. Further, while denying the allegations of dispossession of the petitioner from his assigned land, it is stated that the suit land has been identified for providing house sites to the beneficiaries identified under “Indiramma Programme” of the residents of Naspur and Mancherial. It is further stated that if the land of the petitioner is required for any public purpose, prescribed procedure will be followed while taking possession of the said land. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents. In a case of LAO-cum-RDO, Chevella Division, v. Mekala Pandu[1], a Larger Bench of this Court has elaborately considered the rights of the assignees when their assigned land is required for public purpose. In the aforesaid case, while considering the conditions of grant, this Court has held that the condition imposed in the patta that assignees are not entitled to compensation, in case the Government resumes the land for public purpose, as unconstitutional condition and as such not valid. Inasmuch as the respondents have categorically stated in the counter itself that if the land of the petitioner is required for public purpose, due process of law will be followed, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his assigned land as otherwise in due process of law and if the land of the petitioner is required for public purpose, the respondents shall follow the procedure in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in LAO’s case referred supra. Subject to above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY 28.06.2011 v v [1] 2004 (2) ALD 451