IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 598 of 2008 Between: Boddu Sivasri W/o.Venkata Narayana R/o.Velamapet, Kalidindi Road, Kaikaluru Village and Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Krishna District, Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sub-Collector, Gudivada, Krishna District. 3 The Tahsildar, Kaikaluru Mandal, Krishna District. 4 The Mandal REvenue Inspector/ Additional Revenue Inspector, O/o. Mandal Revenue Office, Kaikaluru, 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records leading upto and passing the impugned order of the 3rd respondent Tahsildar Kaikaluru Mandal in his proceedings in Rc.A/190/2007, dt. 6-10-2007 and quash the same being without jurisdiction and sanction of law. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Y.SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 2. Petitioner questions the order, dated 06-10-2007, passed by the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar, Kaikaluru mandal, Krishna District in R.C.A.190 of 2007 resuming the assigned land of an extent of Ac.2.87 cents in Sy.No.65/1, 2, of Kaikaluru mandal under Section 4(1)(a) of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’) on the ground that the petitioner has purchased the said land in contravention of sub-Sections 1 to 3 of Section 3 of the Act and therefore, such purchase is null and void. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she has not purchased the said land but she herself is the assignee of the said land as is evident from the D-Form patta granted vide LD.No.384/1393, dated 22-06-1983. It is stated that from the date of the assignment the petitioner herself is in occupation and enjoyment of the same and as the said land was assigned in favour of the petitioner herself the allegation that the petitioner purchased the said land is without any foundation or justification and therefore, the impugned order itself is illegal, arbitrary, without any application of mind, and contrary to the provisions of the Act. 4. While admitting the Writ Petition this Court made the following order in W.P.M.P.No.676 of 2008 on 21-01-2007: “A perusal of D-Form patta DKT.No.384/1393, dated 22-06-1983 goes to show that an extent of Ac.2.87 cents in Sy.No.645/1 & 65/2 situated at Kaikalur village has been assigned in favour of the petitioner, but the resumption order goes to show that the said land has been assigned in favour of somebody else and the same has been transferred in favour of petitioner, which, obviously appears to be incorrect. Accordingly, there shall be interim suspension”. 5. Thereafter, a counter has been filed stating that as per the records available no assignment was made in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said land and there is no office copy of the patta available in the office record and the land still stands classified in the revenue records as ‘Assessed Waste Dry land’ and therefore it is incorrect to state that the petitioner was assigned the said land, and as the petitioner was found in occupation of the said land action has been taken under the provisions of the Act. It is further stated that the petitioner herself is not entitled for the patta as she is nonresident and utilizing the said land as fish tank without permission through some others. 6. I am of the opinion that it is not open for the respondents to take such a plea in the counter as the assigned land was resumed under the provisions of the Act on the ground that it was assigned in favour of somebody and the petitioner purchased the same. The respondents also based on the footing that the land was assigned in favour of somebody but the petitioner purchased the same and therefore the provisions of the Act attract. But it is the specific case of the petitioner that she herself is the assignee and she is not the purchaser. If that be so, the impugned order passed on the ground that she has purchased the said land in contravention of the Act is not correct and therefore the said order is not sustainable. It is not the case of the respondents in the impugned order that the petitioner is not entitled for the said land and she is only an encroacher. The validity, legality of the matter alone is the subject-matter of the Writ Petition and as admittedly the resumption was not on the ground that she is not entitled to the said land or that she has used the said land for some other purpose the order impugned is unsustainable. 7. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 04th March, 2008 Tsy To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}