THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.3389 OF 2020

ORDER

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“...to issue a Writ order or orders particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No 3 in dismissing the Revision Case Proceedings No.E2/2527/2018, dated 18/01/2020 confirming the orders of the respondent No.4 in file No.D/3363/2016, dated 20/12/2017 as arbitrary illegal and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and set aside the same and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to hold the land in Survey No.69/B admeasuring Acs.2.04 guntas situated at Shankerpally Village and Mandal Ranga Reddy District as per Section 4 (b) (1) of the Act 9 of 1977 and to pass...”

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for the respondents and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land to an extent of Acs.2.04 guntas in Sy.No.69/B, situated at Shankerpally Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The said land is assigned to the petitioner vide proceedings No.C3/5983/77, dated 26.10.1977 under Rule 10(4) of Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling and Agricultural Holdings) (for short, Rule, 1974’). The name of the petitioner was also mutated in the revenue records. Since then, the petitioner is in peaceful possession of the subject property. After the demise of the father of the petitioner, the brothers of the petitioner made an application before the Revenue Sadhasu to effect the partition of the family property in Sy.Nos.120/C, 54, 56, 55, 57, 59, 68 and 65, as the survey numbers are ancestral property, accordingly partition was effected. Later on, brothers of the petitioner included Sy.No.69/B, admeasuring Acs.2.04 guntas, which is assigned to the petitioner under Rule, 1974. The petitioner brought the same to the notice of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shankerpally that Sy.No.69/B is an assigned land, brothers of the petitioner have nothing to do with the same. The Tahsildar, Chevella passed the order proceedings No.ROR/OP/2/1998, dated 02.06.1998 and Memo No.3334/2016 in November, 2016 refused to delete the names of the brothers of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.4 against the proceedings issued by the Tahsildar in proceedings No.ROR/OP/2/1998, dated 25.06.1998 and Memo No.3334/2016 in November, 2016, the same was numbered as D/3363/2016. However, respondent No.4 by order dated 20.12.2007 set aside the proceedings dated 02.06.1988 and directed respondent No.5 to take Ac.1.20 guntas into government custody on the ground that the petitioner relinquished his rights and violated the provisions of assignment Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Revision before respondent No.3 on the ground that neither petitioner have transferred the land nor sold the land to the third parties as such there is no contravention of Section 3(1) of A.P. Assignment Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short, Act, 9/77’) . Apart from that respondents have to follow Act, 9/77. However, respondent No.3 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner and directed to resume the land vide order dated 18.01.2020 in Proceedings No.E2/2527/2018. Hence, the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Dandu Laxmaiah vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and another, 2013(2) ALT 165(S.B.). The relevant portion reads as under:

“9. The Act prohibits alienation of assigned land in favour of a 3rd party. It is not uncommon that when land is assigned in favour of one of the members of the