IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 6406 of 2008 Between: 1 Naramsetty Narasimhulu S/o.Guruvulu R/o.Biyyalapeta Village Vizianagaram mandal and District 2 Naramsetty Appalaswami S/o.Guruvulu R/o.Biyyalapeta Village Vizianagaram mandal and District 3 Lanka Suryanarayana S/o.Satyam R/o.Dharampuri village Vizianagaram mandal and District 4 Bogi Venkata Ramana S/o.late Lakshmana Rao R/o.Dharampuri village Vizianagaram mandal and District 5 Bogi Rama Rao S/o.Late Lakshmana Rao R/o.Dharampuri village Vizianagaram mandal and District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, Vizianagaram District Vizianagaram 2 The Revenue Divisional officer, Vizianagaram Division Vizianagaram District 3 The Tahsildar, Viziangaram Mandal Vizianagaram District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in issuing the notice under Rule 3 of the AP Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 and further putting the flags in the lands of the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction and against to the principles of natural justice and consequently the direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of their lands admeasuring Ac.0.51 cents in SY.no.73/8 Ac.0.51 cents inSy.No.73/5 Ac.0.51 cents in Sy.No.73/7 Ac.0.40 cents in Sy./No.73/10 Ac.0.49 cents in SY.No.73./9 Ac.0.49 cents in SY.No.73 and Ac.0.51 cents in SY.No.73 and 73/3 situated at Dharampuri village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District without following the due procedure contemplated under the Law and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon`ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.TADDI.NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Oral order: This writ petition is misconceived. The five petitioners, in substance, seek interdiction of the proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’) read with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 (for short ‘the Rules’). The 3rd respondent issued notices in Form-II under Rule 3 of the Rules, calling upon the petitioners to show cause within 15 days of the receipt of the notice as to why they be not summarily evicted from assigned lands and as to why any crop or other product raised in the land or building or other construction erected or anything deposited thereon, should not be forfeited. The notices allege that the petitioners who ared assignees of land have contravened the provisions of sub- section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. The petitioners assert that several extents of land in the sub- divisions of Sy.No.73 of Dharmapuri village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District have been purchased from the persons who had been assigned the lands in question under Section 14 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and the purchasers titles had become absolute after the passage of 15 years from the date of assignment to the vendors, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. Be that as it may. What is issued to the petitioners is a mere show-cause notice by the 3rd respondent who is an authority competent to initiate proceedings for alleged violation of the provisions of the Act. There is no patent and inherent lack of jurisdiction established. None is pleaded either. If the petitioners wish to defend the proposed eviction or forfeiture of the land, it is open to them to submit a response to the show-cause notice issued by the 3rd respondent sensitizing the said respondents of all the defenses they have against the proposed action. A writ in the nature of writ of Prohibition is however, not the appropriate remedy. In the circumstances, the writ petition is misconceived. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is stated in para 9 that by the proceedings dated 5-11-2007 orders have already been issued for resumption of the land from the unauthorized persons, namely, the petitioners. But they refused to receive the proceedings and, therefore, orders of resumption have been served by means of substituted service by affixture on the properties concerned and the lands were resumed to the Government. It is also stated that possession was taken on 28-12-2007 under a panchanama. As against the order of resumption passed by the 3rd respondent, an appeal lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 4-A of the Act. In the circumstances above, the writ petition as instituted is misconceived, requires to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. The petitioners are however at liberty to pursue appellate remedy against any final orders passed by the 3rd respondent under the provisions of the Act. In the light of the statement made in the counter- affidavit that the petitioners have refused to receive the order and in the light of submission by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is hereby directed that the 3rd respondent shall furnish copy of the orders of resumption passed against the petitioners, forthwith on the petitioners applying for the same. On receipt of the said order, it shall be open for the petitioners to pursue appropriate appellate remedies under the provisions of the Act. The writ petition is dismissed as above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 22nd April, 2009. GRR