THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.19428 OF 2002 25.11.2010 Between: Thotapalli Pitambar Rao and others. …Petitioners AND The District Collector, Karimnagar, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.19428 OF 2002 ORDER: The first petitioner filed an application before second respondent on 02.08.2002 requesting for certified copies of Pahanis in respect of Bancharai Government land in survey No.439/B admeasuring Acs.10.00 situated at Chintakunta Village of Karimnagar Mandal. By Memo No.C/981/2002, dated 06.08.2002, second respondent informed that certified copies cannot be issued as the original assignee sold the land and that pursuant to orders in letter No.B1/2621/1999, dated 08.06.1999, possession was taken over by the Government. Assailing the same, present writ petition is filed. The affidavit filed by first petitioner on behalf of all the petitioners – thirteen in number; reveals their case as follows. The subject land was assigned to father of the first petitioner late Janaki Ram Rao vide proceedings No.A3/17633/60, dated 24.01.1962. On 14.12.1964, the grantee sold the land to Gaddi Ellaiah (petitioner 2), Bollaboina Ramaiah (petitioner 3), Jittaboina Balaiah (petitioner 4), Jittaboina Chintaiah (father of petitioner 7), Jittaboina Mallaiah, S/o Peda Rajaiah, Jittaboina Rajamallu (father of petitioners 8 and 9), Jittaboina Komaraiah (father of petitioner 10), Koyyada Mallaiah (father of petitioners 11 and 12) and Bollaboina Rajaiah (petitioner 13). After purchase, they allegedly obtained Pattadar Pass Books under Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The petitioners, therefore, contend that the resumption of land under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (PoT Act) is illegal and that no notice was issued to the first petitioner. Therefore, in this writ petition, they seek a declaration that the action of second respondent in cancelling assignment of the land in survey No.439/B is illegal and arbitrary. Counter affidavit is filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer opposing the writ petition. It is stated that on coming to know that the original assignee is not cultivating the land, a show cause notice in Form-I, dated 25.01.1999 was issued to the original assignee and the same was served on the purchasers. No objections were filed by the purchasers and therefore, by proceedings dated 08.06.1999, Mandal Revenue Officer directed resumption of the land. Under Panchanama dated 05.07.1999, the land was resumed to the Government. It is also alleged that Janaki Ram Rao never cultivated the land and permission under Section 5 of the PoT Act was not granted for sale of the land. The counsel for petitioners relies on G.O.Ms.No.1743, dated 28.08.1959 and submits that the condition of inalienability was not attached while the land was assigned to Janaki Ram Rao and therefore, the sale in favour of petitioners 2 to 13 or their predecessors does not in any manner contravene the conditions of assignment. Nextly, he submits that no notice was issued to all the purchasers and in any event no such notice was issued to the first petitioner and therefore, proceedings are unsustainable. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that when the assignment was made in favour of Janaki Ram Rao, an agreement was obtained under which he agreed not to sell the property nor mortgage the property to any third party, but in violation of the same, he sold away the land. After his death, his son Pitambar Rao himself approached second respondent seeking permission of the gratification for selling the land and therefore, the petitioners cannot turn around and take a different plea now. She also submits that the land has already been resumed and the petitioners are not in possession of the land. The petitioners did not specifically challenge the proceedings No.B1/2621/1999, dated 08.06.1999 under Section 4(1) of the PoT Act. By the said proceedings, the second respondent after recording a finding that Janaki Ram Rao alienated the property in contravention of Section 3(2) of the PoT Act ordered resumption of land. In the absence of specific challenge to the said order, it is not proper for this Court to go into the questions of validity or otherwise of applicability of PoT Act. The said proceedings were passed on 08.06.1999. The writ petition is filed on 01.10.2002 after some delay. Presumably to create cause of action, first petitioner applied to second respondent on 02.08.2002 seeking certified copies and when the same is denied, they filed instant writ petition. The order refusing to supply certified copies is alone under challenge and therefore, the order of resumption passed by Mandal Revenue Officer in June, 1999 cannot be permitted to be challenged collaterally. G.O.Ms.No.1743, dated 28.08.1959 does not contemplate a situation where the assignee executed agreement/undertaking not to sell or mortgage the land to anybody. The undertaking is a binding obligation on the original assignee as well as his predecessors. Therefore, prima facie the action taken by the Mandal Revenue Officer under the PoT Act cannot be faulted. This Court, however, hastens to add that the petitioners may approach the Revenue Divisional Officer and seek redressal under Section 4-A of the PoT Act and place all the facts. If the Revenue Divisional Officer comes to a conclusion that no notice was issued to petitioners 2 to 13, he may consider the appeals and pass appropriate orders. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 25.11.2010 Pln