THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.774 of 2005 Dated: 02.01.2007 Between: Sk. Ameer. ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Nellore, and others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.774 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner was assigned land admeasuring Acs.5.00 in survey No.241/4 situated at Katrayapadu Village, Dagadatti Mandal, Nellore District, vide proceedings dated 24.11.1983. He occupied the land and regularly cultivating the same till the filing of the writ petition and thereafter. In connection with assignment of land to the landless poor persons, the Village President included the petitioner’s land in the list of lands for such distribution on republic day in 2005. Apprehending forcible dispossession, instant writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner and distribute his land to the landless poor persons as illegal and arbitrary. This Court, while, admitting the writ petition on 25.01.2005, ordered status quo. The respondents moved W.V.M.P.No.214 of 2006 for vacating the interim order. As the controversy is in a limited area, the matter was heard finally at the stage of interlocutory applications and is being disposed of. The third respondent, namely, the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) in the counter-affidavit admits the assignment of the land to the petitioner. It is, however, stated that during the regular inspection and identification of assigned lands, which were alienated, it was noticed that the petitioner sold away the land to one Kuncha Hajarath Reddy of Dharmavaram Village of said Mandal. Therefore, action was initiated under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, (the Act, for brevity) and the Andhra Pradesh Assigned (Prohibition of Transfer) Rules, 1977 (the Rules, for brevity). Under Rule 3 of the Rules, on 08.07.2004, notice was issued to the original assignee as well as the alienee. As both of them were not available in the Village, necessary orders were passed on 09.08.2004 resuming the land. The allegation that the petitioner is being dispossessed without due process of law is denied. The petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit traversing the counter averments. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that in the absence of any notice to the petitioner, the alleged resumption of the land by MRO is unsustainable. He also submits that the petitioner is very much residing in the said Village and regularly cultivating the land and therefore, the allegation that the petitioner is not residing in the Village is not proved. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) has produced file bearing No.Rc.B.321/2005 and submits that the notice dated 08.07.2004 was issued in Form I to the original assignee, the petitioner as well as the alienee, Hajarath Reddy. The Village Servant has endorsed on the notice that the petitioner and Hajarath Reddy are not staying in the Village and therefore, the resumption order dated 09.08.2004 was passed resuming the land. He also submits that in view of the interim order, the land could not be distributed to the landless poor persons. A perusal of the file would show that the notice was sent from the office of MRO on 08.07.2004 to the petitioner as well as Hajarath Reddy. They could not be served because as per the endorsement made by the then Village Servant that the petitioner and the alienee are not in the Village. Therefore, MRO proceeded with further enquiry and, having come to the conclusion that the land assigned to the petitioner comprised in survey No.241/4 was in possession of Hajarath Reddy, came to the conclusion that the petitioner sold the land to Hajarath Reddy in contravention of Section 3(2) of the Act. Therefore, whether the petitioner is very much present in the Village and whether he is cultivating the land are the issues which are now brought before this Court. Though they were not considered by MRO, in such a situation, it would be in the interests of the petitioner to obtain a copy of the resumption order bearing proceedings in Rc.B.226/2004 dated 09.08.2004 and prefer an appeal under Section 4-A of the Act before the second respondent, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali. The appeal may be preferred immediately and the same shall be disposed of within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the appeal. There shall be status quo as on today for a period of one month from today. The writ petition, with the above observations and directions, is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 02nd January, 2007 ghn