THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 3065 OF 2003 Dated: 30.09.2010 Between: Mohd. Iliaz Ali and others ..... PETITIONERS AND The District Collector, Karimnagar and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 3065 OF 2003 ORDER : The petitioners herein claim to be the sons of one Mohd. Sabir Ali, who had purchased Ac 3.23 guntas of land situated in Arepalli village, Karimnagar Mandal and District from Arepalli Yellaiah, Gasikanti Mondaiah and Karla Ravinder Rao. It is not in dispute that the said lands were assigned lands. Therefore, steps have been initiated under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, ‘Act 9 of 1977’) for resumption of the lands and a notice was issued to Mohd. Sabir Ali in form-I and he submitted his explanation stating that he had purchased the assigned lands in good faith and he was a poor person. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Karimnagar, while holding that the explanation was not satisfactory ordered resumption of the land in question vide proceedings dated 30.09.1996. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred before the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar. After an elaborate enquiry, the 2nd respondent recorded a finding that the assignment was made under the Special Laoni Rules, 1950, under which there was a specific condition that the assigned lands should not be alienated. It was also held that the contention that the father of the petitioners had purchased the lands in question prior to commencement of Act 9 of 1977 was incorrect. Similarly the plea that he was a landless poor person was also not accepted. Accordingly, by order dated 05.02.1997 the order of resumption passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer was confirmed. Challenging the same, the father of the petitioners preferred a further appeal under Section 4-A (2) of the Act. The said appeal was dismissed by the 1st respondent herein by order dated 16.01.2003 thereby confirming the finding recorded by the respondents 2 and 3. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the orders passed by the respondents are arbitrary and illegal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. As could be seen, the lands in question are admittedly assigned lands. Though it was contended by the father of the petitioners that he had purchased the lands prior to the commencement of Act 9 of 1997, it was not accepted by the respondents 1 to 3. It is true that in case the assigned land was purchased in good faith and the purchaser was a landless poor person, the purchaser is entitled to the benefit of exception under Section 3 (5) of Act 9 of 1997. However, the plea that the father of the petitioners was a landless poor person was not accepted by the respondents 1 to 3. Such a concurrent finding of fact, which is based on proper appreciation of the material available on record, warrants no interference by this Court. Consequently, it cannot be said that the resumption ordered by the 3rd respondent as upheld by the respondents 1 and 2 suffered from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 30.09.2010 Ivd