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 MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27787 of 2008 Between: Smt Narapenni Nookalamma W/o.Late Appala Naidu C/o. Vegetable Market, Kancharapalem Mettu, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Sub-Registrar, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam District. 2 District Collector, Visakhapatnam District. 3 The Tahsildar, Anakapalli Taluk Office, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. 4 Sri Lalam Appalanaidu S/o. Pentayya Pylavanipalem Ankapalli Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District. 5 Penuganti Demudu S/o.Penaganti Appalanaidu Pylavanipalem Ankapalli Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District. 6 Sri Lalam Mutyalayya S/o.Pentayya Pylavanipalem Ankapalli Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District. 7 Sri Pyla Appalanaidu S/o.Somunaidu Thanam Village, Paravada Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District. 8 Sri Pyla Demudu S/o.Appanna Thanam Village, Paravada Mandalam, Visakhapatnam 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 any appropriate Writ, order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in registering the assigned land in favour of the respondents 4 to 8 is illegal arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 1977 and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to restore the assigned land of an extent of Ac.3-00 in Survey No. 6/8 and 7/2 of Koduru Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.Y.SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents 4 to 8: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27787 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioner’s husband was assigned an extent o Acs.5.00 in survey Nos.6/8 and 7/2 of Koduru village of Anakapalli Mandal in Visakhapatnam District, as he worked as Sepai in Madras Regiment from 1962 to 1965. After his death, petitioner was issued pattadar passbook mentioning extent as Acs.3.00. Be that as it is, petitioner executed a registered document being document No.9 of 2000, dated 03.1.2000 in favour of respondents 4 to 8. She alleges that she is a physically challenged person and due to financial problems and also for marriage of her daughter, she wanted to mortgage property to respondents 4 to 8, but they played fraud and obtained signatures on sale deed which they got registered. After a period of five years, she allegedly approached respondents 4 to 8 for clearing debt, then she was informed that property is registered in their favour. In the mean while, second respondent initiated action under provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (the Act, for brevity) and issued notice in Form-I under Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 1977 (the Rules, for brevity) calling upon petitioner as to why assignment should not be cancelled. Petitioner submitted explanation. In spite of the same, petitioner’s land was not resumed from respondents 4 to 8 and not restored to her. She then approached Legal Services Authority, Anakapalli, in PLC No.21 of 2007. Respondents 4 to 8 appeared and did not accept for settlement. Petitioner alleges that registration of document by first respondent ignoring certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Anakapalli, is contrary to Section 5 of the Act, and therefore, the same is bound to be cancelled. When she approached for the same, cancellation was not made. Hence present writ petition is filed. After hearing learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General), this Court is of considered opinion that writ of Mandamus cannot be issued declaring action of first respondent as illegal. It amounts to canceling sale deed duly registered and such power is conferred on civil Court under Section 31 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. Secondly presumably on a complaint given by petitioner, third respondent initiated action under the provisions of the Act and Rules and it is always open to petitioner to approach third respondent for restoration of land in accordance with Section 4 of the Act, as amended by A.P. Act No.xxxxx of 2007. In this writ petition, no declaration can be given. It is also open to petitioner to approach civil Court and seek cancellation of sale deed (document No.9 of 2000, dated 3.1.2000) in accordance with Section 13 of Specific Relief Act. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) December 22, 2008. YS To 1 Sub-Registrar, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam District. 2 District Collector, Visakhapatnam District. 3 The Tahsildar, Anakapalli Taluk Office, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. 4 Two CCs to Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 5 Two CD copies.