The petitioner-A.P. State Electricity Board Employees Union, Madanapalli Division, filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 12.6.1998, and to quash the same being arbitrary and illegal.

2. The facts in brief are as under:

One K. Obulappa was assigned the land to an extent of Ac 5.26 cents situated in S.No.509/4 of B.K. Palle Village in the year 1933. On his death, the respondents 4 and 5 herein have continued in possession and enjoyment of the same not only as the legal heirs of the original assignee, but also on the basis of a registered gift deed executed by their father K. Obulappa during his life time. Subsequently, out of the said land, the petitioner-Union purchased an extent of Ac 5.00 cents of land from the respondents 4 and 5 under an agreement of sale, dated 25.4.1981, for a consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is not in dispute that the entire sale consideration was paid and the petitioner-Union was put in possession of the land in question. However, since no registered document was executed, the petitioner-Union made an application to the third respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, seeking regularization of the sale under Section 5-A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ROR Act). Having considered the same, the third respondent passed an order, dated 23.7.1990, regu1arising the sale and transferring the ownership in favour of the petitioner-Union. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents 4 and 5 filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, however, the same was dismissed on 23.2.1996. Challenging the same, the respondents 4 and 5 preferred a revision petition before the Joint Collector, Chittoor. After hearing both the parties, the Joint Collector, Chittoor, by order, dated 8.6.1997 remanded the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, observing that though the revision petitioners (respondents 4 and 5 herein) had no claim on the land, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer was not based on a thorough examination of facts, since the land involved in the transaction was an assigned land.

3. Pursuant thereto, the Revenue Divisional Officer-second respondent herein, after conducting fresh enquiry, passed the impugned order, dated 12.6.1998 under which, not only the order of the third respondent, dated 23.7.1990 made under Section 5-A of the ROR Act, as confirmed by the second respondent on 23.2.1996, was set aside, but the assignment in favour of K. Obulappa granted in the year 1933 was also cancelled and the third respondent was directed to resume the land to the Government within 24 hours.

4. Hence, this writ petition by the petitioner Union, contending, inter alia, that the impugned order was not only arbitrary and illegal, but also without jurisdiction since the second respondent has no authority to cancel the assignment made in favour of the original assignee K. Obulappa in the year 1933. .

5. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note that during the pendency of the appeal against the order of the third respondent made under Section 5-A of the ROR Act, the petitioner-Union filed O.S. No.128 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, against the respondents 4 to 8 herein, for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the possession of the land in question. Even prior to that, the respondents 6 to 8 filed O.S. No.139 of 1993 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, for partition against the respondents 4 and 5. On the basis of a settlement arrived at between all the parties, both the said suits were disposed of in terms of the settlement, vide award dated 25.4.1998, passed by the Lok Adalat. As a matter of fact, the said award, dated 25.4.1998, was placed before the second respondent by the respondents 4 to 8 herein requesting to dismiss the