THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5349 of 2009 ORDER: The Mandal Revenue Officer, Guntur District, the first respondent herein, initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Through the order, dated 25.02.2006, he directed resumption of the land of the petitioner in Survey No.677/1 of Ankireddipalem Village, Guntur Mandal, admeasuring Acs.4.68 cents of land. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, the second respondent herein, in the year 2006. The petitioner states that the land was assigned to the father of his vendor on payment of market value and alienation was very much permissible. The petitioner further contends that the original patta is filed in the Court of the II Additional Munsiff Magistrate, Guntur in O.S.No.1095 of 1982 and though an observation was made to the effect that the revenue record is not available with the Office of the first respondent, the patta was cancelled. Under these circumstances, the petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent not to proceed with the appeal without verifying the record in respect of the patta granted to the father of the vendor of the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The very preamble of the order, dated 25.02.2006, passed by the first respondent discloses that a policy decision was taken by the Government to resume all the Government lands and to evict the encroachers. If at all anything, the said policy discloses the lopsided priorities of the Government. The object underlying Act 9 of 1977 was to ensure that the assignees would continue to enjoy the benefit of the lands, if the lands were sold under distress conditions. Of late, the Government had virtually defeated that very policy and the Act was used as a ruse to resume the lands to the Government, so that they can be assigned for influential agencies or persons. The peculiar aspect of the matter is that even in his order, dated 25.02.2006, the first respondent observed as under: “ The office records in respect of pattas were granted are not available”. Then, it becomes just un-understandable as to how he has ascertained the conditions of patta and how he arrived at a conclusion that the conditions were violated. The whole approach of the first respondent is totally objectionable and instead of protecting the rights of the small farmers or the ryots, he has identified for himself, a policy to resume the land on the one pretext or the other. Be that as it may, even the appellate authority has to take further steps only after verification of the record. If the record is not available, the benefit of doubt cannot be extended to the Government. On the other hand, it must be extended to the persons who claim the rights in the land and were enjoying it over the past several years. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the second respondent shall proceed to decide the appeal only after he secures definite and authenticated information about the nature of pattas that were granted to the assignees and conditions therefor. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:17.03.2009 kdl