IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16808 of 2000 Between: Daida Saidulu … Petitioner And District Collector, Nalgonda and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: None Counsel for respondents: AGP for Revenue This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to restore the land admeasuring Ac.1.16 guntas in Survey No.626 of Miryalaguda village, Nalgonda District, to the petitioner under Section 4 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “the Act”). An extent of Ac.1.20 guntas in Survey No.626 of Miryalaguda village and Mandal was assigned to Daida Iddaiah S/o.Lachaiah. Out of the said extent, an extent of Ac.1.16 guntas was in possession of the said Iddayya and Gamaiah. The said two persons alienated the said land in favour of one Muppa Ankaiah. Notice dated 20-8-1997 was issued to all the three persons under the provisions of the Act. After following the procedure prescribed under the Act, the said land was restored to the Government by respondent No.2 vide: his proceedings dated 9-12-1997. Writ Petition No.58 of 1998 filed by Smt.Muppa Vengamma, w/o.Muppa Ankaiah was dismissed by this Court on 11-8-1998 with liberty to her to avail the alternative remedy of appeal. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Miryalaguda, it is stated that no such appeal has been filed and, accordingly, the order of resumption has become final. On 22-5-2000 the petitioner made a representation to restore the said land to him claiming that he was adopted by Daida Iddiah. On the ground that the said representation was not considered, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, he, inter alia, denied the claim of the petitioner that he is the adopted son of Daida Iddaiah and pointed out that he did not file any document in support of the said claim. I have carefully perused the record, which reveals that the petitioner, except making an assertion that he is the adopted son of Daida Iddaiah (the original assignee), he did not file any document in support thereof. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of restoration of the land under Section 4 of the Act. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed. --------------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 23-07-2008 MNR