IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 23069 of 2008 Between: Sayyed Dasthagiri S/o.Late Sayyed Tipu Saheb R/o.8/300 Station Road, Raghavaiahpet Sullurpet Tow,Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat,Hyderabad 2 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, AP Hyderabad 3 The District Collector, Nellore, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore district 4 The Sub-Collector, Gudur, Sri Potti SRiramulu Nellore District 5 The Tahsildar, Sullurpet ,Sullurpet Mandal Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing Rc.A.218/2007 dated 26.6.2007 cents comprised in Sy.no.119-4 of Degalapalem village, Sullurpet Mandal Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District and further action of the 3rd respondent in sending proposal to the 2nd respondent for allotting the same as house sites to the Electronic media and journalists as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and consequently direct the respondents to resume the land admeasuring Ac.0.71 cents comprised in Sy.No.119-4 of Degalapalem village, Sullurpet Mandal Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District in favour of petitioner Under sec.4(1) (b) of AP Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act,.1977. Counsel for the Petitioner: MRKBHIMA SINGH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled questioning the orders dated 26.6.2007 issued by the 5th respondent – Tahsildar, Sullurpet cancelling the assignment granted in favour of the petitioner and resuming the land to the Government. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and at their request the writ petition is taken up for ﬁnal disposal at the admission stage itself. It is the case of the petitioner that he was assigned an extent of Ac.0.71 cents of land in Sy.No.119-4 in Degalapalem Village by the then Tahsildar vide proceedings dated 23.2.1968 and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the said land. While so, on 11.8.2008 he found somebody pouring sand in his land and, therefore, made an application to the 5th respondent – Tahsildar, Sullurpet under Right to Information Act. Thereupon, he was issued with the certiﬁed copy of the Adangal issued by the Tahsildar dated 9.9.2008 wherein the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Sullurpet Mandal has written that vide proceedings dated 26.6.2007 of the Tahsidlar, Sullurpet, the assignment granted in his favour was cancelled and the land was converted as A.W.Dry land. The 5th respondent has also issued certiﬁed copy of the Village Accounts No.3 dated 9.9.2008, which shows that the land in an extent of Ac.0.35 cents was resumed for having violated the condition of grant under Section 4(a) of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). Hence this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that before issuing the impugned orders, no notice was served on the petitioner and the order was also not communicated to him and only under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner has obtained a copy of the said order, basing on which the authorities are now trying to allot the said land to third parties and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that on noticing that the assigned land has been alienated in favour of the enjoyer in contravention of Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the Act, a notice has been issued to the enjoyer in Form-II under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Trnasfer) Rules, 2007 (for short ‘the Rules’) informing the enjoyer to oﬀer explanation, if any, within 15 days and a notice was also issued to the Assignee in Form-1 under Rule 3 of the Rules and the same have been served on both of them on 1.6.2007 in person. Since both the assignee as well as the enjoyer have not oﬀered their explanations, basing on the material available on record, the impugned order is passed resuming the land. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no notice, in fact, was served on the petitioner and only on his application made under Right to Information Act, he was given a copy of the impunged orders passed by the 5th respondent. In the circumstances, since as against the impugned orders passed by the Tahsildar, Sullurpet, an appeal lies to the Sub-Collector, Gudur within 90 days from the date of receipt of the said order and as the copy of the impugned order dated 26.6.2007 has been issued to the petitioner on his application made under Right to Information Act on 30.9.2008, the petitioner is directed to ﬁle an appeal and the appellate authority is directed to entertain the appeal and pass appropriate orders and till such time, status quo obtaining as on date to be maintained. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.22.10.2008 msv