THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 18940 of 2008 Order: Aggrieved by the order dated 09.03.1993, passed by respondent No.3, namely the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Manubolu, canceling the D-Form pattas in respect of the land in question, and resuming the land to the government, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The petitioners claim that their father, namely late Kasturaiah, was assigned land in an extent of Acs. 2.50 cents in Sy. No. 174/1, situated at Kattuvapalli village, by respondent No.3, vide his proceedings in F.Dis. No. 2256/79, dated 06.02.1970, and since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioners state that in the year 2002, when respondent No.4 tried to interfere with their possession, they approached respondent No.3, who informed them that the D-Form pattas granted in favour of their father, was cancelled vide proceedings dated 09.03.1993, and the land resumed was assigned to respondent No.4 vide proceedings dated 05.01.2002. The petitioners state that no notice whatsoever was issued to them by respondent No.3 before canceling the D-Form patta, and the notice said to have been issued, was served on one Sri. P. Basava Kumar, who has nothing to do with the land. They state that they have not sold the land to the said Sri. P. Basava Kumar, and are still in possession and enjoyment of the land. That the petitioners being the legal heirs of the original assignee, are entitled to restoration of the land, and as such, prayed that the impugned order dated 09.03.1993 passed by respondent No.3 cancelling the assignment made in favour of their father and resuming the land to the government, be quashed and set aside. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and perused the counter ﬁled by respondent No.3, on behalf of himself and on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The fact that the petitioners father was assigned the land in question vide proceedings dated 16.02.1970, is not disputed by the oﬃcial respondents. However, it is contended by them that during course of veriﬁcation, it was found that petitioner No.1, who is the wife of the original assignee, has alienated the same in favour of one Sri. Basava Kumar, by executing a Power of Attorney. Therefore, respondent No.3, is said to have issued notice to the said Sri. Basava Kumar, under Section 3(2) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’), and as he failed to submit any explanation within the stipulated time, and having regard to the fact that the provisions of the Act, prohibit alienation of assigned lands, respondent No.3, passed the impugned order dated 09.03.1993, canceling the D-Form pattas and resumed the land to the government, an no exception can be taken thereto. Though the petitioners contend that they being the legal heirs of the original assignee, as provided under Section 4(b) of the Act, are entitled to restoration of the land, the fact remains, it is the speciﬁc case of the oﬃcial respondents that during the process of identiﬁcation of the beneﬁciaries, they found that the petitioners who are joint family members, are possessing patta wet land in an extent of Acs. 2.91 cents in Kolanukuduru village, and since they are not landless poor persons, they are not entitled to assignment of any land. Since petitioner No.1, who is the wife of the original assignee and mother of petitioner No.2, is said to have alienated the land in question to one Sri. Basava Kumar, and respondent No.3 having found the petitioners not to be landless poor persons, no exception can be taken to the action of respondent No.3 in not restoring the land to the petitioners, they being the legal heirs of the original assignee. Further, even though the D-Form patta as cancelled as far back as on 09.03.1993 and the resumed land assigned to respondent No.4 way back on 05.01.2002, the petitioners have ﬁled the present writ petition, nearly after lapse of 15 years from date of cancellation and six years after the assignment made in favour of respondent No.4, and the same suffers from delay and laches. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 5th November, 2008 KSR