IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 28639 of 2008 Between: 1 Ravilla Chengama Naidu S/o.Muna Swamy Naidu R/o.Brahmanapalli Village, K.V.B. Puram Mandal, Chittoor District. 2 Somavarapu Sravan Kumar S/o.Vijaya Kumar R/o.Brahmanapalli Village, K.V.B. Puram Mandal, Chittoor District. 3 Ravilla Pratap S/o.Chengama Naidu R/o.Brahmanapalli Village, K.V.B. Puram Mandal, Chittoor District. 4 Polineni Vinod Kumar S/o.Narayana Chowdhary R/o.Brahmanapalli Village, K.V.B. Puram Mandal, Chittoor District. 5 Polineni Vikram Kumar S/o.Narayana Chowdhary R/o.Brahmanapalli Village, K.V.B. Puram Mandal, Chittoor District. 6 Polineni Prasanna Kumari W/o.Narayana Chowdhary R/o.Brahmanapalli Village, K.V.B. Puram Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2 The Tahsildar, K.V.B. Puram Mandal, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the notices in Form -I purported to be under Rule 3 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007, issued by the Tahsildar, K.V.B. Puram Mandal, the 2nd respondent herein vide ROC.B/387/08 dated 14.11.2008 to the petitioners in respect of their dry lands i.e., to an extent of Ac.1-50 cents, Ac.1-50 cents, Ac.1-50 cents, Ac.1-65 cents, Ac.1-65 cents and Ac.1.-70 cents comprised in Sy.Nos. 340-3P and 340-5P respectively of Brahmanapalli Village, K.V.B.Puram Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and the Rules made there under and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's lands detailed above comprised in Sy.Nos. 340-3P and 340-5P of Brahmanapalli Village, K.V.B.Puram Mandal, Chittoor District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 28639 of 2008 O R D E R: The petitioners herein are assigned different extents of land situated in Brahmanapalli village, K.V.B.Puram Mandal, Chittoor District. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the notice issued calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the assignment granted to them shall not be cancelled alleging that they have transferred the lands in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). The said notices are challenged in this writ petition contending inter alia that the impugned action of the second respondent without initiating any action against the alleged transferee as required under Rule 3 of the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.281, Revenue, dated 02-02-1978 is arbitrary and illegal. It is also pleaded by the petitioners that the allegations that they have transferred the assigned lands in favour of third parties is absolutely false and even in the impugned notice, the respondents could not specify the person in whose favour the assigned land was transferred. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. At the outset, it is to be noted that the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No. 281, dated 02-02-1978 were superceded and fresh Rules were made under G.O.Ms.No.208, Revenue, (ASSN-POT) dated 22- 02-2007. As per Rule 3 of the said Rules made under G.O.Ms.No. 208 dated 22-08-12007, the District Collector or the Authorized Officer are entitled to issue notices in Form No.1 and Form No.2 simultaneously to the persons who have transferred and also the persons who have acquired assigned lands in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Act. Hence, I do not find any substance in the contention of the petitioners that the impugned notice is contrary to law. So far as the merits are concerned, it is always open to the petitioners to deny the alleged transfer of the assigned lands in contravention of Section 3(1) of the Act and to produce the relevant material before the respondents to satisfy that they are continuing in possession of the assigned land as on today. The petitioners sate that as a matter of fact, they have already submitted their explanations on 01-12-2008. In the circumstances, it is open to the respondents to make necessary enquiry following due process of law and pass appropriate orders. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even before passing any final order pursuant to the impugned show cause notice, the respondents are taking steps to dispossess the petitioners forcibly. In the circumstances, while leaving it open to the respondents to pass appropriate orders pursuant to the impugned show cause notice, it is made clear that they shall not interfere with the possession of the petitioners in respect of the land in question in any manner whatsoever till appropriate orders are passed pursuant to the impugned show cause notices. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 31-12-2008 Note: Issue C.C. in 2 days. B/o KLP