THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.26858 of 2011 ORDER: Questioning the action of the first respondent, in interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands in Sy.Nos.160 (new No.39) and 161 of Moturu Village, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna District of an extent of Ac.3.32 cents, the present Writ Petition is filed. It is wholly unnecessary to refer to the facts except to note the contention of Sri P.Suresh Kumar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner’s vendor was an ex-serviceman who was assigned land in the year 1945; the assignment does not contain a non-alienability clause; there is no prohibition for the sale of such lands; and, therefore, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) are not attracted. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment), on instructions, submits that, as the petitioner’s vendor had violated the conditions of assignment, necessary action would be initiated under the Act read with the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 (for short ‘2007 Rules’), both against the petitioner and his vendor for violation of conditions of assignment, and for alienation of assigned lands. Rule 3 of the 2007 Rules requires a notice in Form-I and II to be issued to the assignee and the subsequent purchaser, giving them 15 days to show cause why the assignment should not be cancelled, and why the land should not be resumed. On receipt of the notice, both the assignee and the persons to whom he has alienated the assigned land, would have the opportunity to submit their objections thereto. It is only, thereafter, that action can be taken by the competent authority in terms of the provisions of the Act and 2007 Rules made thereunder. In the light of the submissions now made by the Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment), and as no action has as yet been initiated to evict the petitioner, the cause in the Writ Petition does not necessitate adjudication. Leaving it open to the respondents to take action in accordance with law, including under the provisions of the Act and 2007 Rules made thereunder, no orders need be passed in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:29.09.2011 usd