IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 11311 of 1998 Between: Mohammadi Begum, W/o Syed Ghouse Ahmed Quadri, R/o 2-122, Darga Hussai-Shah Wali (V), Serilingampaly (M), Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally (M), Ranga Reddy District. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District. 3 District Collector, Hyderabad, R.R. District. 4 Special Deputy Collector, Land Protection, Lakdikapool, R.R. District Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring that the action of the 1st respondent contained in Proceedings No.B/739/98 dt: 31-3-1998 purporting to resume the land of the petitioner situated in Sy.No.41/3, Kanamet (V), Serilingampally (M), Ranga Reddy Dist. in exercise of the power under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition on Transfer) Act 1977, is arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of Ac.4.00 gts of land in Sy.No.41/3, Kanamet (V), Serilingampally (M), R.R.Dist. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 31-03-1998, passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer of Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District where under and whereby the 1st respondent has directed resumption of land purchased by the petitioner in Survey No.41/3 of Kanamet village, Serilingampally Mandal, without giving any opportunity to the same. 2. The petitioner states that he purchased 4 acres of land in Sy. No.41/3, Kanamet village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District vide registered sale deed dated 08-02-1989 and since then she is in possession of the property. The petitioner contends that the impugned order was passed by the authority, at the behest of the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is appellate authority, and the same suffers from jurisdictional error, inasmuch as the resumption order is passed contrary to law and that while passing an order of resumption, they have to issue notice, without any notice and the rule mandates, they should not take possession. 3. The learned Government Pleader contended that originally the petitioner purchased the land from the original owners vide registered sale deed dated 08-02-1989 in Sy.No.41/3 and he is assignee and he cannot transfer this property which is in violation of Section 7 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and it does not confer any legal right so as to confer any title in the eye of Law. 4. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, it is seen from the records that the R.D.O. Chevella vide letter No.B/739/98, dated 31-03-1998, issued instructions to take over possession of the land in question and report compliance. On the same date of instructions of the R.D.O. Chevella, the 1st respondent primary authority passed the impugned order. Since the primary authority ought to have exercised his jurisdiction independently and he passed the impugned order at the instance of the R.D.O., who is appellate authority, the same is unsustainable, on that ground alone the impugned order is set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ VILAS.V.AFZUL PURKAR, J July 13, 2009. DSH/KK.