IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26745 of 2008 Between: Morla Krishna Veni (Hindu) W/o. Morla Sundara Rao R/o. Surampally Village, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P. Rep. by its District Collector Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Nuzvid Krishna District. 3 The Tahsildar Gannavaram Mandal Krishna 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in trying the dispossess the Petitioner from the lands purchased by him existing in Sy. Nos. 191/3 to an extent of 0-50 cents, nd 191/6 to an extent of Ac. 0-50 cents, totally admeasuring Ac. 1- 00 cents of agricultural land of Surampally Village, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the lands in Sy. Nos. 191/3 to an extent of 0-50 cents, and 191/6 to an extent of Ac. 0-50 cents, totally admeasuring Ac. 1-00 cents of agricultural land of Surampally Village, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District without following the due procedure contemplated under law i.e. issuing notice, considering the representation of the Petitioner with regard to exemption available to him under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and A.P. Assigned Lands (POT) Rules, 1977 as amended by Act 8/2007, the petitioner's long and uninterrupted possession etc. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.SUBBA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26745 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioner and her family allegedly purchased lands admeasuring Acs.3.50 in survey Nos.191/7, 191/8, 191/11, 191/12, 191/13, 191/14 and 191/16 situated at Surampally Village of Gannavaram Mandal in Krishna District under registered sale deeds in 1988 and 1989 from M/s.Guddeti Musalaiah and others. Her family allegedly purchased other extent of land (Ac.1.50) in other survey numbers, namely, 191/9, 191/10 and 191/15, and also an extent of Ac.1.00 in survey Nos.191/3 and 191/6, under agreements of sale, and are allegedly in possession and enjoyment of the land where they raised mango garden fifteen years ago. It is alleged that a day prior to filing of the writ petition, third respondent visited the land and informed that petitioner purchased assigned land by mistake and that she will be dispossessed. Petitioner contends that even if she purchased assigned land, by reason of Section 3(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (the Act, for brevity), being landless poor person, she is entitled for regularization of the sale, and she cannot be dispossessed without following procedure contemplated under Section 4 of the Act read with the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 (the Rules, for brevity). This Court heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment). After giving anxious consideration and perusing the material on record, this Court is convinced that the writ petition is filed on a mere apprehension. There is a presumption in law that all Government actions are taken in accordance with law and there is no presumption in law that every Government Official entrusted with statutory power would violate the law. In view of this, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition, which is based on an apprehension. This Court, however, observes that even if petitioner has purchased assigned land in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, third respondent can take necessary action only in accordance with law. The Writ Petition, with the above observation, is dismissed accordingly. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 08.12.2008 vs To 1 The District Collector, State of A.P. Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Nuzvid Krishna District. 3 The Tahsildar Gannavaram Mandal Krishna District. 4 2CCs to G.P for Revenue, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KBJ}