THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 966 OF 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This writ appeal has been filed against order dated 10-07-2009 in Writ Petition No. 13753 of 2009, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition in limini. 2. The appellant claims to be the owner of Acs.2.00 of land in Survey No. 439/4 of Chinttakunta Village, Khammam Mandal and District. His case is that his mother purchased the said land from one Sri Pattam Mallaiah through registered sale deed bearing document No. 2388/1983 for a valuable consideration and that the property was mutated in the year 2003, through proceedings dated 16-12-2003 in the name of the appellant's mother, in the revenue records. The appellant felt aggrieved by the interference of respondent No.3 with his possession of the said land. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on two grounds viz., that the State is not made a party and that the appellant has a remedy of civil suit. 3. In response to the notice issued in the writ appeal, respondent No. 3 filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is inter alia stated that the above mentioned land was assigned to Sri Pattam Mallaiah, son of Ramaiah and that the same was resumed under order dated 03-10- 2006, after issuing a show cause notice and considering the explanation dated 09-05-2006 filed by Sri Pattam Mallaiah, for two reasons, viz., that the D-form patta condition No. 15 was violated and that the assigned land was required for a public purpose. Respondent No.3 also filed proceedings dated 25-01-2008, wherein house site pattas were purportedly granted in favour of 44 persons, in respect of the above mentioned land. 4. Sri Ch. Srinivas, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the family of the appellant had been in possession of the property since the year 1983, no notice whatsoever was given to the appellant before cancelling the assignment. He stated that the appellant is still in possession of the property in question. 5. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue stated that the appellant was not in possession of the property when notice was issued before cancellation of the assignment. 6. In our considered view, the validity or otherwise of the order cancelling the assignment cannot be gone into in the present proceedings because that was not the subject matter of the writ petition. As the writ petition was dismissed in limini, the learned single Judge did not have the occasion to deal with the said aspect. 7. Be that as it may, since the fact that the assignment was cancelled has been admitted by the respondents, the appellant shall be free to question the said proceedings and also the consequential proceedings by which the house sites were granted, in an appropriate proceedings. 8. Therefore, the writ appeal is disposed of with liberty to the appellant to avail the appropriate remedy to question the said proceedings. Keeping in view the fact that the respondents in the counter affidavit have admitted that mutation was made in favour of the mother of the appellant, albeit the further plea that the same was subsequently cancelled and the further fact that no notice was given to the appellant before cancellation, we are inclined to direct the respondents to maintain status quo with respect to possession for a period of one month to enable the appellant to avail his remedy. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th August, 2009 ks