THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.6184 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is the son of Mr.Mandoji Mohd. Khan. The latter purchased an extent of Ac.2.24 cents of land in Sy.No.54-2 of Venkatapuram Village, O.D. Cheruvu Mandal, Anantapur District, from one Maqbool Shah through a sale deed dated 10-04-1980. Maqbool Shah purchased that land through a sale deed dated 04-02-1959 from one Mr.Pathan Maqbool Shah. The land constituted part of Ac.5.98 cents owned by Asadi Peda Bayappa and China Bayappa. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in distributing the house site pattas, in respect of the land referred to above. He contends that the land was neither acquired by the respondents 1 and 2, nor that he has given any consent. On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the land in Sy.No.54-2 of Venkatapuram Village was at one point of time was classified as Government dry, and subsequently it was assigned to eligible landless poor. According to them, though the classification was made as Government dry, it was recorded as patta, for some years. The assigned land was said to have been sold in pieces between 1959 and 1980. The revenue records are said to have been corrected, and that the possession of the land was resumed on 10-06-2003. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Assignment, for respondents 1 and 2, and learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5. The petitioner has traced his title to the land, almost for the past half a century. All through, it was treated as a patta land in the names of various persons, and it was enjoyed accordingly. The Tahsildar, the 2nd respondent, has deposed to an affidavit to the effect that the land was assigned to eligible poor. However, no particulars of such assignment are furnished. The fact that the land was the subject-matter of various sale deeds between 1959 and 1980 is admitted. Assuming that the land was assigned to landless poor and it came to be transferred, the only alternative for the respondents 1 and 2 is to initiate proceedings under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act (for short ‘the Act’). Even that could have been possible, if only the respondents 1 and 2 were sure about the assignment; there existed a condition, prohibiting alienation, and that the alienation has taken place after the date, stipulated under the Act. In the instant case, the 2nd respondent issued a notice in the year 2003, and thereafter passed an order on 10-06-2003. A perusal of the same discloses that the only basis for the so-called resumption is that the land is needed for distribution of house sites. No provision of law is mentioned, much less the proceedings are referable to the Act. It is also mentioned that the father of the petitioner appeared in response to a notice, and though he said that he is not prepared to part with the land, the land is said to have been resumed to the Government, on the ground that it is needed. The record does not disclose as to when it was classified as Government land, after it came to be recorded as patta, and as to when it was resumed to the Government. Viewed from any angle, the action of the respondents 1 and 2 cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, as prayed for. It is however directed that, in case the respondents 1 and 2 intend to resume the land to the Government, they shall issue specific notice to the petitioner, duly indicating the relevant provision of law, and take further action in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08-06-2010. KO