IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14614 of 2000 Between: Smt. Doddakka … Petitioner AND Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri O. Manohar Reddy Counsel for respondents 1to4: AGP for Revenue (Assignment) This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14614 of 2000 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 04.12.1999 passed by respondent No.2 insofar as it reversed order dated 31.03.1998 of respondent No.3. The petitioner is the wife of the brother of respondent No.5. A DKT patta was granted in respect of Ac.5.08 cents in Sy.No.97- 3A in the name of respondent No.5 on 03.01.11957. The petitioner approached respondent No.4 for issue of pattadar passbooks for Ac.2.54 cents in her possession out of Ac.5.08 cents for which the assignment stood in the name of respondent No.5. Her case before respondent No.4 was that respondent No.5, being the eldest brother of the family, was assigned the land for the benefit of the entire joint family and therefore respondent No.4 was not justified in granting pattadar passbook exclusively in favour of respondent No.5. This plea of the petitioner was accepted by respondent No.4 and issued pattadar passbooks for Ac.2.54 cents. Respondent No.5 filed appeal before respondent No.3, who by his order dated 31.03.1998 dismissed the same. He found that the adangal extracts filed by the petitioner for Faslis 1404 and 1405 clearly established that the family of the petitioner and respondent No.5 have been cultivating the extents of Ac.2.54 cents each and that both of them are paying land revenue to the extent of the lands in their possession. He also considered the unregistered family settlement deed under which the land was partitioned among them in the said proportion. Having regard to this material, respondent No.3 arrived at the conclusion that respondent No.4 should have taken action to cancel the assignment standing in the name of respondent No.5 and reassign the lands in favour of the petitioner and respondent No.5 equally. He accordingly directed respondent No.4 to resume the land to the Government and issue patta passbooks to the parties according to their enjoyment. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.5 filed revision before respondent No.2. The said revision was allowed by respondent No.2 and held that respondent No.3 ought to have resumed the land under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, ‘the Act’) on the purported ground that by entering into a family settlement, they have violated the said provisions. I have carefully considered the order passed by respondent No.2 and am of the considered opinion that the same is totally unsustainable. Under the provisions of the Act, the assigned land cannot be sold. However, the standard conditions of the DKT patta i.e., condition No.1 envisages that the assigned land is heritable, but not alienable. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner and respondent No.5 are brothers and they belonged to one family. If the assignment was granted in favour of one of the family members, the Act does not prohibit its enjoyment by other family members. Since the land is heritable, there cannot be any legal bar on the property being partitioned among the family members. In this view of the matter, the reasoning and approach of respondent No.2 is wholly perverse. His order is accordingly set aside and order dated 31.03.1998 passed by respondent No.3 is upheld. Respondent No.4 shall carry out the directions contained in the order of respondent No.3 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.18562 of 2000 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 21.07.2008 ES