IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.5996 of 2005 Between: V.Nookaraju and 4 others ..... PETITIONERS AND The District Collector, Visakhapatnam and 3 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.5996 of 2005 O R D E R: Petitioners five in number seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in destroying the mango, teakwood, sapota, guava, cashew and lemon trees in the garden and attempting to demolish the house and water supply well with motor and electrical poles along with underground water pipelines with sprinklers on 17.03.2005 and again on 21.03.2005 without notice and without acquiring land for any public purpose by following due process of law and by paying compensation in an extent of Ac.1.15 cents in Sy.No.322/3 of Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioners that they have purchased the said land through an unregistered agreement of sale dated 18.09.1976 from one late Gujjari Pandurangarao for valuable consideration in good faith and possession of the said land was delivered in favour of the petitioners. It is stated that the said Gujjari Pandurangarao sold the said land for his necessities. In fact, petitioners filed earlier WP.2697/2005 seeking to consider and dispose of their representation dated 21.01.2005 which was filed to grant permission for obtaining registered sale deeds basing on the agreement of sale under Sec.5 of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act 1957 from the successors of the original assignee, and the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 16.02.2005 directing to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioners dated 21.01.2005 within a period of four weeks and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. It is stated that respondents Nos.1 and 2 have highhandedly attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession of the same with a view to grab the said land for cricket stadium. A counter is filed by the 2nd respondent Mandal Revenue Officer as well as the 3rd respondent Cricket Stadium. In the counter, the Mandal Revenue Officer stated that admittedly an extent of Ac.2.28 cents of land in Sy.No.322/2B situated at Madhurawada village was assigned in favour of G.Pandurangarao under the normal Dharkast rules vide Patta No.722 and the original assignee died and his legal heirs have succeeded the same. It is stated that the legal heirs of the original assignee have agreed to handover the said land provided that some other alternative land is assigned to them. Pursuant to their representation, Government issued orders in Memo No.43954/Assn.-I(2)/2004 dated 11.02.2005 according permission to the District Collector to handover the advance possession of the said assigned land in favour of Visakhapatnam District Cricket Association pending finalization of lease proposals and to assign an extent of Ac.3.00 of land in exchange of the said land in favour of the legal heirs of the original assignees in Sy.No.1 of Paradesipalem village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal. Pursuant to the orders of the Government, the District Collector issued orders handing over the said assigned land in favour of Cricket Stadium and assigning Ac.3.00 of land as alternative land in favour of legal heirs of the original assignees. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that admittedly the petitioners are said to have been purchased the said land under the unregistered sale deed i.e. after commencement of the Act 9/94. The Act came into force w.e.f.21.01.1977. According to the averments of the petitioners they have purchased the said land pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 18.09.1976 i.e. prior to the Act came into force. I am of the opinion that the land assigned in favour of landless poor is not alienable even prior to the said Act came into force. Under Sec.3(5) of the said Act if the assigned land is purchased by the landless poor in good faith and for valuable consideration then the provisions of Sec.3 have no application. Admittedly, in the instant case, no registration has taken place. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have purchased the said land prior to the commencement of the said Act. However, it is not the case of the petitioners that they are landless poor and the said land was purchased in good faith. The petitioners are not the landless poor and found otherwise, and no such transfer has been affected prior to the commencement of the said Act. Therefore, the petitioners have no right or legal entitlement to seek any relief in the writ petition. As the land was already handed over to the 3rd respondent-cricket stadium and in fact alternative assignment was made in favour of the successors of the original assignees, nothing survives in this writ petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 17.03.2011 Dsr