THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.25702 of 2001 September 14, 2009 Between: Kandregula Ramunaidu, S/o.Venku Naidu And others …Petitioners and The Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, And others. …Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.25702 of 2001 ORDER: First petitioner is father and petitioners 2 to 4 are his children. They filed instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring order bearing RC No.7159/93/E1, dated 03.11.2001, of first respondent as illegal and arbitrary being violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (the Act, for brevity). The case of petitioners is as follows. Wife of first petitioner, Gowrilamma, purchased an extent of Acs.2.00 of dry land in survey No.153/2 situated at Swayambhuvaram village of Parawada Mandal in Visakhapatnam District under registered sale deed dated 15.2.1979 from third respondent, who was assigned an extent of Acs.4.97 in 1968. Gowrilamma was allegedly in possession of land from 1968 to 1993 and after her death, petitioners succeeded to property. They also allege that they are landless poor and therefore they are entitled to the benefit under the provisions of Section 3(5) of the Act. After sale of property, third respondent filed O.S.No.497 of 1987 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Anakapalle, for recovery of possession of land, which was sold to Gowrilamma. The suit was dismissed. Against the same, third respondent preferred appeal on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle, which is pending. In the meanwhile, second respondent passed orders on 13.4.1993 for resumption of land alleging that purchase is in violation of provisions of the Act. First petitioner therefore filed appeal before first respondent, who dismissed the same by impugned order. Respondents 1 and 2 or respondents 3 to 7 have not filed counter affidavit. This Court heard learned Counsel for petitioners. He contends that petitioners are landless poor persons and therefore they are entitled to retain land as per Section 3(5) of the Act, even though it is assigned land. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment), after taking this Court through impugned order, submits that Joint Collector found that petitioners are not landless poor persons, and therefore, question of fact cannot be reagitated in a writ petition. First respondent, after going through records, recorded following findings: (i) that wife of first petitioner purchased assigned land in violation of Section 3(1) of the Act; (ii) first petitioner is already in possession of Acs.5.00 of land in Ravada village of Parawada Mandal, which itself was assigned to him, and therefore, he is not a landless poor person; (iii) as the first petitioner is not landless poor person, petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of Section 3(5) of the Act. The above facts, which have a bearing on the jurisdiction exercised by respondents 1 and 2, would certainly support impugned order and that the plea of petitioners that they are entitled to the benefit of Section 3(5) of the Act is misconceived. The impugned order therefore does not suffer from any error much less grave error apparent on the face of record. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) September 14, 2009 YS