dIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18881 of 2004 Between: K. Krishnaiah, S/o. Narsimlu, R/o. Badepalli Village, Jedcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. (died per L.Rs) 2. K.Venkatamma 3. K.Srinivas ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Mahabubnagar District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Jedcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.G.JYOTHI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 08-03-1999 of respondent No.2 as being violative of the constitutional provisions and natural justice. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note that during the pendency of the writ petition, the sole petitioner died and his wife and son have got impleaded as petitioners 2 and 3. The writ petition is concerned with Acs.2.00 of land in Survey No.161/2 of Badepalli Village, Jedcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. This property was purchased by the deceased writ petitioner vide registered sale deed bearing No.1127/64 dated 23-11- 1964 (In the affidavit, sale deed Nos.1718/97 and 1717/97 dated 06-11-1997 are mentioned and at the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that reference to the said numbers is a mistake and that inadvertently they were not struck off in the original affidavit filed in the Court). Apprehending that the respondents are likely to dispossess the petitioners from the said property, deceased writ petitioner filed O.S.No.39 of 1999 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Jedcherla for permanent injunction. In the written statement, the respondents pleaded that the property was assigned to one U.Balaiah, S/o Sayanna and that therefore, proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’) for alienation of the property by the original assignee contrary to the provisions of the said Act. Having regard to the said pleadings, the suit was dismissed on 07- 09-2004 on the ground that the provisions of the said Act contained a bar on the civil Courts from entertaining civil suits. It appears that during the pendency of the said suit, respondent No.2 passed order dated 08-03-1999 whereby the property was restored to the government on the ground of violation of the provisions of the Act. This order is assailed in this writ petition. At the hearing, Smt G.Jyothi Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioners, advanced two contentions, namely; that the impugned proceedings are not preceded by any notice and an opportunity of hearing to the deceased writ petitioner and the premise on which the land has been restored to the legal heirs of the original assignee is erroneous, because the land in question was assigned to the original assignee under Laoni Rules in the year 1954 and that therefore, the assignment granted under the said Rules did not contain any prohibition on transfer of the land. Opposing the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) submitted that against the order passed under the provisions of the Act, the petitioners have an effective remedy of filing an appeal and the writ petition filed bypassing such remedy is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that the record reveals that when the notice was sought to be served on Sri K.Krishnaiah (deceased writ petitioner), he refused to receive the said notice and hence, the same was affixed and therefore, principles of natural justice are not violated. He also submitted that the petitioners failed to plead and prove that the assignment was made under Laoni Rules and that as they failed to produce the patta containing the conditions, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. I have given serious thought to the submissions made by the learned counsel. As regards the contention relating to non-observance of principles of natural justice, advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the impugned proceedings respondent No.2 mentioned that notice in Form-I was issued and served upon the concerned through VAO, Badepalli Village. In the record produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, an endorsement is made in Telugu with a signature contained below the said endorsement showing 15-09-1998 as the date of the endorsement to the effect that as Sri K.Krishnaiah refused to receive the notice, the same was affixed at his residence. There is thus apparent contradiction between the statement contained in the impugned proceedings and the record. If the contents of the endorsement were correct, respondent No.2 should have specifically mentioned the fact that the deceased writ petitioner refused to receive the notice and hence, service was effected through the means of substituted service, namely; affixture at his residence. In view of this patent contradiction, it is not possible for me to hold that there was proper service of notice on Sri K.Krishnaiah, the deceased writ petitioner. Hence, the impugned proceedings passed in violation of principles of natural justice deserves to be set aside. Ordinarily, the case would have been remitted to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration. But, as noted above, the learned counsel for the petitioners pleaded that in the face of incontrovertible facts contained on record which show that the assignment was made under Laoni Rules and in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Gudepu Sailoo[1], following which a batch of writ petitions was allowed by this Court, in B.Shankerlingam and another vs. District Collector[2], there is no need to remand the matter for fresh consideration. Though the petitioners have not come out with a specific plea of their own regarding the nature of the assignment, they have placed heavy reliance on the evidence affidavit filed by T.Bal Raj, the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Jadcherla, who deposed as D.W.1 in O.S. No.39 of 1999 filed by the deceased writ petitioner. In paragraph 3 of the said evidence, it is mentioned as under: “The suit land was assigned to landless poor person one Udityla Balaiah, S/o Sayanna of Badepally Village of Jadcherla Mandal in the year about 1954 under the Laoni patta Rules and his name has been incorporated as pattadar in Revenue Records. But the plaintiff has purchased that land against the provisions of A.P. Assigned lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.” In para 5 of the counter-affidavit filed by the same Officer in this writ petition, he confirmed what he had deposed in the civil suit as under: “In reply to para 6 of the petitioner’s affidavit it is submitted, that it is true that, the respondent No.2 had pleaded that the assignment has been taken place in the year 1954. But it is for the petitioner to establish his case as that was saved from the alienation, by producing original ‘D’ form patta certificate of his vendor i.e., original assignee. The 2nd respondent did not depose that, the suit land was assigned as per Laoni Rules, 1950, but deposed that, the assignment has been taken place in the year 1954 under the Laoni Patta Rules. Whether his patta certificate has contained non-alienation condition or not, is to be determined only by producing his vendor’s patta certificate. It is not true to say that all lands of Badepalli Village were assigned during the period of 1950 to 1955, but most of the lands were assigned in the subsequent year 1961 also during the special drive.” It is legally well settled that facts admitted need not be proved. As the respondents themselves admitted that the property was assigned in the year 1954, under Laoni Rules, 1950, it is not necessary for the petitioners to file a copy of the assignment. It is not the case of the respondents that the assignments made under the Laoni Rules contained any prohibition on alienation. Indeed this Court in the above mentioned batch of writ petitions, while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Gudepu Sailoo (supra), held that the assignments made under the said Rules did not contain any prohibition against alienation. The learned Assistant Government Pleader failed to substantiate how the case on hand is different from the cases decided by the learned Single Judge in the said batch of writ petitions. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned proceedings are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 18th June, 2008 vrn [1] AIR 2000 SC 2297 [2] W.P.No.6851 of 1993 and batch