Suo motu power to resume assigned lands is illegal and unsustainable when initiated after an unreasonable and inordinate delay, in the absence of valid reasoning or exceptional circumstances such as fraud.

The Court made the following order:

Heard Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Satyanarayana Nimmala, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 and 7.

2. The instant writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 1st respondent dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner against the order of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner sought for a consequential, direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the lands of the petitioners.

3. The petitioner claims to be a landless poor person. The 5th respondent, while she was alive, represented to the petitioner that she was the absolute owner of the possession and offered the said land for sale. The petitioner in good faith purchased the same for valuable consideration through a registered sale deed dated 11.10.1991. Since then the petitioner has been in occupation and enjoyment of the said lands. In recognition of the petitioner's possession and enjoyment, the revenue authorities have mutated the petitioner's name in the revenue records. Pattadar passbooks have also been issued.

4. It is contended that after the said purchase, the petitioner had developed the land, the unofficial respondent No.5 having developed a greedy eye on the property began interfering with the petitioner's possession. The petitioner had to file a civil suit in O.S.No.617 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore. The said suit was decreed, vide the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2013. Even after the disposal of the suit, the 5th respondent, in his continuous attempts to dispossess the petitioner, approached the District Collector, stating that the subject land is an assigned land and the without authority, the petitioner had occupied it. Based on the said representation, the 2nd respondent initiated action against the petitioner and issued a notice dated 11.06.2010. Challenging the said notice, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.26995 of 2010. In the said writ petition, interim orders were granted. Despite the pendency of the said writ petition, the 2nd respondent passed orders directing the 4th respondent to resume the land to the Government. In pursuance thereof, the 4th respondent issued notice in Form-II under the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007, dated 21.02.2015. Thereafter, an order dated 16.04.2015 was passed, stating that the subject lands are assigned lands and that the petitioner has been in possession of them unlawfully. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore, the 3rd respondent herein. The 3rd respondent rejected the appeal vide its order dated 01.02.2016. Being aggrieved by the same, a revision petition was filed before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 10.10.2016 dismissed the revision petition. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent, by way of Revision petition. The 1st respondent, vide impugned proceedings, rejected the revision stating that the petitioner had purchased the land from the original assignee which is contrary to the provisions of the AP Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), observing thus the 1st respondent confirmed the proceedings of the 2nd respondent. The learned