THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.28061 of 2008 ORDER: The writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus namely seeking allotment of land admeasuring Acs.2.34 in survey No.1784-2 situated at Kadiri village (petition schedule land, for brevity) without giving opportunity to petitioner and without following due process of law as illegal and contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (the Act, for brevity) and Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 (the Rules, for brevity) and for a consequential direction not to interfere with petitioner’s possession of land. The petitioner Smt S.K.Kairun Bee alleges that petition schedule land was allotted to her father-in-law Alam Sab. After his demise, petitioner’s husband succeeded to the property. After death of her husband, land stood transferred in the name of petitioner. She also obtained Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds (PPBs/TDs). These are petition allegations. The respondent issued notice in Form-I under Rule 3 of the Rules alleging that Smt S.K.Abdul Khader, W/o Alam Sab, transferred the assigned land in contravention of provisions of Section 3 of the Act and the person was asked to show cause as to why assignment should not be cancelled under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioner contends that notice issued to her husband, who died and though she is in possession, no notice is issued to her and in spite of submitting explanation, respondent is taking steps to allot land in favour of third parties. Therefore, the writ petition is filed. The petitioner has enclosed the PPBs originally issued in favour of husband of petitioner and consequently transferred in favour of petitioner, which prima facie leads to an inference that the land stands in the name of petitioner. If that be so, notice issued to a dead person (petitioner’s husband) is no notice. Even otherwise now that petitioner has already submitted explanation, unless and until same is considered, respondent cannot take any further action inducting third parties into the land. It is needless to mention that unless and until order is passed and petitioner is evicted as per law for alleged violation of provisions of the Act or the Rules, petitioner has right to enjoy the property. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 24.12.2008 pln