THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8601 of 2010 Dated:19.04.2010 Between: Chinthala Ashok Reddy. ...Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8601 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner assails the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.568, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 05.06.2009. By the said Government Order the Government rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 4-B of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (the Act). The brief background of the case is as follows. The petitioner is a physically challenged person. He alleges that he was in occupation of the land admeasuring Acs.2.07 guntas situated at Kotra Village of Veldanda Mandal in Mahabubnagar District (hereafter referred to as petition schedule land). The petitioner further alleges that after the demise of his father all his relatives appropriated his father’s land to themselves leaving him without anything for sustenance except the petition schedule land. Therefore, he asserts that he is landless poor person. In 2003 the third respondent initiated action under Section 4(1) of the Act on an allegation that the petitioner was in possession of the assigned land granted to V.Rupla, S/o.Somla of Kotra Village. After receiving notice, the petitioner did not submit reply or explanation. Therefore, by proceedings dated 15.04.2003 the third respondent ordered resumption of the land and restoration of the land to the original assignee. The petitioner filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 4-A of the Act. The same was dismissed on 05.03.2005. The petitioner then filed a revision/appeal under Section 4-B of the Act. The revisional authority also dismissed the same on 27.08.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred yet another revision before the Government which was dismissed by the impugned order. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is landless poor person and therefore, he is entitled to protection under Section 3(5) of the Act. Even if the petitioner’s father was rich landlord, after his death the petitioner is left without any source of livelihood, and therefore, merely because the petitioner’s father filed a declaration under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, the petitioner cannot be considered as a rich person. This Court has perused the orders of the original authority, appellate authority, revisional authority as well as the impugned order. While dismissing the revision petition the Government observed as under. Case called for hearing at 3.00 PM on 20.12.2008. Advocate for the petitioner and the Tahsildar, Kalwakurthy Mandal have attended. The records of the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar have been obtained. As verified from the records, it is observed that Sri Rupla S/o.Samya belonging to S.T.Community was assigned surplus ceiling land to an extent of Ac.2.07 Gts in Kotra village of Veldanda Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. The land was originally declared by the father of Sri C.Ashok Reddy (Petitioner) under Land Ceiling Act. During the course of inspection by the Tahsildar concerned it was found that the surplus ceiling land was assigned to the landless poor beneficiary which was in the possession of Sri C.Ashok Reddy. The Tahsildar concerned has initiated the proceedings under AP Assigned Lands (POT) Act 1977 and resumed the land after following the due procedure under law. It was also reported by the Tahsildar that Sri C.Rami Reddy father of the petitioner holding Ac.34.14 Gts of land as on 1983-84 and the petitioner would get his share of Ac.17.07 Gts. Thus the petitioner is not entitled for any exemption under Section 3(5) of the Act. The conclusion reached by the Government cannot be faulted on any grounds. The Government considered the correct law and applied it correctly. The Writ Petition is misconceived, and is accordingly dismissed. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 19.04.2010 vs