IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27750 of 2008 Between: Marri Pedda Malleshu S/o. Malleshu R/o. Kuknoor Village, Vailpoor Mandal, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Nizamabad. 2 The Joint Collector, Nizamabad. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad. 4 The Tahsildar, Vailpoor Mandal, Nizamabad District. 5 D.S. Vidyavathi W/o. Late D. M. Shankar Rao R/o. H.No.1-8-1/46, Suryanagar, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad. .....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 any appropriate writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Proceedings No.A2/2342/2005 dated 28-5-2005 cancelling the assignment of the lands in Sy.No.167/2 extent Ac.2-33 guntas and Sy.No.167/3 extent Ac.2-18 guntas situated at Komanpally Village, Vailpoor Mandal, Nizamabad which are assigned in favour of husband of the Respondent No.5 i.e., Late D.M. Shankar Roa, Freedom Fighter vide proceedings dated 20.12.1965 on the ground of violation of conditions and terms of patta certificate without any notie to the petitioner though he is in possession of the above lands and also the order passed by the 2nd respondent returning and rejecting the revision filed under the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 1977 vide No.E1/3302/2008 dated 6-10-2008 without verifying the fact of petition filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent on 27.08.2005 on time in pursuance of the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.16886 of 2005 as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in th eye of law and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI V.RAVI KIRAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27750 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 06.10.2008 passed by the second respondent whereby and whereunder the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 4-B of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (the Act, for brevity), was rejected on the ground that it is barred by delay of three years three months. The brief fact of the matter is as follows. The husband of the fifth respondent who was statedly a freedom fighter was assigned agricultural land admeasuring Acs.2.33 in survey No.167/2 and Acs.2.18 in survey No.167/3 situated at Kumanpally Village of Vailpoor Mandal in Nizamabad District. The petitioner purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 05.11.1973 for a sale consideration of Rs.8,000/-. He contends that there is no condition of inalienability in the assignment granted to the freedom fighter. Be that as it is, when the brother-in-law of the fifth respondent allegedly threatened with dispossession, petitioner filed O.S.No.29 of 1979 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Armoor, against fifth respondent for permanent injunction. The same was decreed ex parte. The effort of the fifth respondent to get ex parte decree set aside was futile. Thereafter, fifth respondent along with her daughter filed O.S.No.94 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, for declaration and possession. The said suit was decreed on 26.04.2006. Petitioner then filed A.S.No.23 of 2006 on the file of the District Judge, Nizamabad, and the same is pending. In 1997 petitioner submitted the application to fourth respondent for issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds. The same was refused. Subsequently, petitioner having come to know that Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad, vide proceedings bearing No.A2/2342/2005, dated 28.05.2005, cancelled the assignment, approached for a copy of the order. The same was not furnished. Petitioner then filed W.P.No.16886 of 2005. This Court by order dated 04.08.2005 directed the respondents to furnish a copy of the order and also gave liberty to the petitioner to file revision petition. The petitioner allegedly filed such a revision on 27.08.2005 within ninety days as provided under Section 4-B(1) of the Act. When the petitioner did not receive any notice of hearing, his Advocate filed a revision petition on 13.08.2007. The same having been dismissed by the impugned order, the present writ petition is filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after disposal of the writ petition, being W.P.No.16886 of 2005 on 04.08.2005, the petitioner submitted an application to the District Collector on 27.08.2005 seeking revision, and therefore, it is within time. He secondly, submits that when no notice of hearing was issued by the respondent, petitioner’s Counsel again submitted a revision petition under Section 4-B of the Act on 13.08.2007, and therefore, second respondent ought to have considered the revision filed on 27.08.2005 as a revision for the purpose of Section 4-B of the Act. Learned Assistant Government Pleader opposed the writ petition. He submits that the alleged revision petition filed by the petitioner on 27.08.2005 cannot be true, because no proof is produced before this Court, whereas the petitioner filed revision petition on 13.08.2007 as seen from the copy thereof annexed to the writ petition. The question whether the petitioner filed revision petition within stipulated time as per Section 4-B of the Act is a question of fact. A copy of the revision petition or application which is in Telugu, allegedly, filed on 27.08.2005 is annexed to the writ petition. The same does not contain any date. In the left hand margin the rubber stamp of Collector’s Office, Nizamabad, is found, but there is no date on the same. In contrast with this, the rubber stamp of Collector’s Office found on the revision petition filed by the petitioner on 13.08.2007 contains the signature of the Official accompanying the same and the date as well. This itself would belie the alleged revision petition filed by the petitioner on 27.08.2005. Secondly, when the petitioner approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus and direction to respondents to continue the petitioner in possession, when there was alleged order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, nothing prevented the petitioner to approach this Court with reference to alleged revision petition filed in August 2005. The petitioner did not pursue the matter and ultimately he filed a regular revision on 13.08.2007. Lastly, the fact that petitioner’s Advocate filed revision petition on 13.08.2007 itself would show that the earlier revision petition was not filed. In the impugned order of the second respondent dismissing revision as barred by limitation, this Court does not find any grave error apparent on the face of the record, as the same is in accordance with the proviso to Section 4-B of the Act. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 22.12.2008 vs To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}