THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.1404 of 2008 Between: Bandi Chandra Reddy and others. .. PETITIONERS and The Tahsildar, Guntur. .. RESPONDENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.1404 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners numbering in four seek to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the respondent in Rc.412/2007-D, dated 15-10-2007, and the Endorsement, dated 11-12-2007, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners and possessors of the lands admeasuring Ac.1-50 cents, Ac.1-00 cents, Ac.2-00 cents and Ac.1-00 cents respectively in Sy.Nos.1258 and 1253 situated at Guntur Village and Mandal, Guntur District, and their names have also been recorded in the revenue records as possessors of the said lands. While so, on 24-11-2007, the petitioners came to know that proceedings are likely to be initiated against the vendors of the petitioners alleging that the said lands are assigned lands and accordingly, the petitioners made a representation on 24- 11-2007 requesting the respondent to furnish assignment particulars. But, on the said representation, the respondent made an endorsement, dated 11-12- 2007, stating that the assignment particulars relating to the lands in Sy.Nos.1250, 1253 and 1258 cannot be furnished, as there are no full particulars of the Guntur village. It is the case of the petitioners that the notices, dated 15-10-2007, have not been served on the petitioners and, therefore, without furnishing required particulars about assignment, initiating action for resumption of the lands in question is illegal and arbitrary. A perusal of four individual notices goes to show that the lands in question were assigned in favour of one Prabala Subrahmanyam but the said lands are found in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners herein and accordingly notices have been issued to the petitioners on 15-10- 2007 calling upon them to submit explanations as to why the lands in question should not be resumed. It is the case of the petitioners that the said notices have not been issued to the petitioners and in fact earlier for acquiring the land admeasuring Ac.0-70 cents in Sy.No.1258/2, the respondent paid compensation of Rs.62,951/- to the father of petitioners 1 to 3. Thus, it is stated that when compensation has been paid under the Land Acquisition Act, it cannot be said that the lands in question are assigned lands and therefore, the notices issued by the respondent on 15-10-2007 are illegal and arbitrary. Admittedly, the said notices are only show-cause notices. It is not known how the petitioners obtained copies of the said notices. If the petitioners had no knowledge about issuance of notices, dated 15- 10-2007, it is not known why they wanted the particulars of the assignment. Further, the petitioners themselves stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that when they came to know that the respondents are likely to initiate proceedings for resumption of the lands, they made a representation, dated 24-11-2007, requesting to furnish assignment particulars. Thus, according to the petitioners, they came to know about initiation of proceedings on 24-11-2007. Admittedly, the petitioners have not made any explanations to the said show-cause notices, so as to enable the respondent to consider the explanations, if any, and to conduct enquiry for the purpose of passing an order under Section 4(1)(a) of A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “the Act”). However, if any such orders are passed, the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal under Section 4-A (1) of the Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the writ petition cannot be entertained and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 29-01-2008 Note: Issue C.C. in two days (B/o) Prv