IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 25315 of 2008 Between: S.A.Khader and another ..... PETITIONER AND The State of A.P rep. By the District Collector, R.R.District and others. .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 25315 of 2008 ORDER : The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their land of an extent of Ac.2.00 in survey No.632/ ,Sy.No.632/ pertaining to the 1st petitioner and an extent of Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.632/ , pertaining to the 2nd petitioner, situated at Chilkoor Village, Moinabad Mandal, Rangareddy District, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. According to the 1st petitioner, he has purchased an extent of Ac.2-00 of land in survey No.632/ and survey No.632/ of Chilukoor Village, Moinabad Mandal, Rangareddi District. Likewise, the 2nd petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.2.00 of land in Sy.No.632/ in the year 1995 under registered sale deed and they have also applied for construction of a small house therein and the concerned Gram Panchayat has granted permission to do so and they have been living there and cultivating the said lands. While that being so, the respondents started dispossessing them from their peaceful possession and enjoyment of their property. 3. Whereas the 2nd respondent filed a detailed counter stating that these lands were classified as Government lands in the revenue records. During the year 1961-62 it was assigned to various landless poor persons. Out of which, an extent of Ac.2.00 gts was assigned to Sri Arkala Shankaraiah, S/o.Lingaiah and an exent of Ac.4.00 gts assigned to Arkala Pochaiah under Laoni Rules, which are heritable but not alienable. It appears that the petitioners have purchased the lands from one Arkala Shankaraiah and Pochaiah respectively in the year 1995-96. The petitioners have purchased the above assigned lands in contravention of A.P.Assigned Lands (POT) Act 9 of 1977. On enquiry, it is revealed that Sri Arkala Shankaraiah and L.Rs of Arkala Pochaiah have sold out the lands to Sri Ch.Murthy and Sri Mahipal Reddy respectively on white paper. Since there was violation of conditions of assignment, notices in Form-I was issued for eviction on 02.03.2005 and since no reply has been received, orders for the resumption of the land was issued on 29.10.2005. The possession was taken over on 10.11.2005 from the possessors of the land and the same was handed over to the HUDA under cover of Panchanama on 31.10.2007. 4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners asserted that the petitioners are still in possession of the property and though no notice of any kind was issued to the petitioners before passing the impugned orders, the respondents are trying to dispossess them from their respective lands. Though it is asserted that no notices were served on the petitioners, the officer, who was present before the Court could not demonstrate before the Court that any notice was served on the petitioners. May be the petitioners have purchased the assigned land from the original assignees, but that itself does not mean that the petitioners can be thrown out, without following due process of law. In a given case, the petitioners may prove that they are also landless poor and they have purchased the same in good faith. Be that as it may, since no notice of any kind was issued, before trying to dispossess the petitioners, the said action is gross violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Therefore, any order passed by the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners is arbitrary and illegal and the writ petition is therefore, disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners without following due process of law. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J August 03, 2009 KSH/MD