IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.981 of 2008 AND WRIT PETITION NO.21320 of 2007 1. WRIT APPEAL NO.981 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 30.11.2007 in W.P.NO.21320 OF 2007 on the ﬁle of the High Court.) Between: 1 Ponnaganti Brahmaiah S/o.Venkata swamy, Near Krishna Memorial School, Bhagyanagr 4th line, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2 Pogula Seshamma W/o.Muleswara Rao, D.No.37-1-407 (14), 1st line, Bhagyanagr, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 Pogula Venkata Rao S/o.Muleswara Rao, D.No.37-1-411 (14), IInd line, Bhagyanagr, Ongole, Prakasam District. 4 Karusala Sailaja W/o.Late Nageswara Rao, Near Krishna Memorial School, Bhagyanagr, 4th line, Ongole, Prakasam District. 5 Pogula Anjali Devi W/o.Venkata Rao, D.No.37-1-407 (14), II line, Bhagyanagr, Ongole, Prakasam District. ...APPELLANTS AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole. 3 The Tahsildar, Prakasam District at Ongole. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE 2. WRIT PETITION NO.21320 of 2007 Between: 1 Ponnaganti Brahmaiah S/o.Venkata swamy, Near Krishna Memorial School, Bhagyanagr 4th line, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2 Pogula Seshamma W/o.Muleswara Rao, D.No.37-1-407 (14), 1st line, Bhagyanagr, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 Pogula Venkata Rao S/o.Muleswara Rao, D.No.37-1-407 (14), 1st line, Bhagyanagr, Ongole, Prakasam District. 4 Karusala Sailaja W/o.Late Nageswara Rao, Near Krishna Memorial School, Bhagyanagr, 4th line, Ongole, Prakasam District. 5 Pogula Anjali Devi W/o.Venkata Rao, D.No.37-1-407 (14), II line, hagyanagr, Ongole, Prakasam District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole. 3 The Tahsildar, Prakasam District at Ongole. ...RESPONDENTS 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in insisting the petitioners to vacate from their respective sites covered by survey number 27 of Pelluru Village as illegal, irregular, without jurisdiction, violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned lands (Prohibition of transfers) Act, 1977 and rules framed there under and oﬀends articles 14, 21 and 300 A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their respective site properties covered by survey number 27 of Pelluru village and pass such other orders or order. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court delivered the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.981 of 2008 AND WRIT PETITION NO.21320 of 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents. At their request, the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition are taken up together for disposal. The appellants are the unsuccessful writ petitioners in a Writ Petition ﬁled, inter alia, seeking for a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in insisting them to vacate from their respective sites covered by Survey No.27 of Pelluru Village as illegal and contrary to the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (“the Act” for brevity) and the Rules framed there under, apart from violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The only ground urged by the appellants is that for some time they have been in possession of the sites under various sale deeds. However, the respondents are trying to dispossess them without holding any enquiry as contemplated under the aforesaid legislation. After taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, the learned Single Judge did not ﬁnd favour and dismissed the same on the ground that the appellants should have approached the authorities concerned. Hence, the appeal. Having heard on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, we are of the view that admittedly, there is nothing on record to show that any proceedings are issued as contemplated under the aforesaid provisions and no notice has also been issued to them. Further, they are in possession even as on this date. In view of the same, it is needless to mention that necessarily the respondents had to follow the procedure as contemplated under the aforesaid Act by issuing notice. Without which, any action on the part of the respondents is arbitrary. However, since there are no proceedings initiated, the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition are disposed of directing the respondents not to evict the appellants without following the procedure as contemplated under the law. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) ________________ (R.KANTHA RAO, J) 23rd September 2008 RRB