THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.692 of 2005 ORDER: It appears, on the allegation that the petitioners are in illegal possession of the lands in Sy.Nos.73/2, 72/11, 72/13, 287/3, 295/4, 85/15, 47/2, 72/15 and 155/4 of Kommaneture village, Gudur Mandal, Nellore District, the 2nd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Gudur Mandal, Nellore District, issued the impugned show cause notice asking the petitioners to submit their explanation as to why the lands held by them shall not be resumed. According to the petitioners, they are the original assignees of the subject lands, but not the purchasers, therefore, the question of issuing impugned notice to them under the provisions of A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, does not arise. Hence, this writ petition. At paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, the respondents tried to justify their action stating as under: “The petitioners stated that Pitchireddy was assigned Ac.3.73 in Sy.No.47/2 & 85/15 during his lifetime and he was enjoying the land, that he is unmarried, that after his death, the petitioners and his brothers are enjoying the land as they are the next legal heirs. In this connection, it is submitted that the Pitchireddy’s Surname is “Gottiprolu” and the petitioner’s surname is “Kapuluru”. Moreover the original assignee is Bachelor as stated in the petition. It is not known how that the petitioners are the next legal heirs to the deceased Pitchireddy. The petitioner concealed the facts to the officers and got the false passbook. I submit that this is purely alienated case.” Further, at paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, the respondents stated the particulars of assignment made in favour of the petitioners. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents. According to the petitioners, they are the original assignees of the subject lands. Even from the averments made by the respondents at paragraph 4 of their counter affidavit, it is clear that it is a case where the subject lands were assigned in favour of the petitioners and D-form pattas were also issued in their favour and, as such, the provisions of Act 9 of 1987 have no application to the case on hand. When a person is assigned with some land and if that person alienates the land to a third party, then only the provisions of Act 9 of 1987 are applicable, but not otherwise. In the present case, if, for any reason, the respondents feel that the assignment made in favour of the petitioners was not in accordance with law or that any fraud was played while assigning lands to the petitioners or that by mistake the pattas were granted in favour of the petitioners, then the respondents can take appropriate action as available under law, but issuance of the impugned show notice to the petitioners invoking the provisions of Act 9 of 1987 is improper. Thus, the impugned show cause notice is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 09.12.2010 v v