YELLAMA SAILOO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are legal heirs of the assignees of agricultural land in Survey No. 182 situated at Doolapally Village of Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. They allege that the land admeasuring about Acs. 2.00 each was assigned to the predecessors in title of the petitioners for the purpose of agriculture, and after the demise of their predecessors, the petitioners allegedly succeeded to the property and cultivating the same. The second respondent initiated action under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act'), and passed orders in proceedings dated 21.10.1998, resuming the land on the ground that the assignees alienated the land in contravention of Section 3(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed a Writ Petition, being W.P. No.11154 of 1999. The learned Single Judge dismissed the same on 14.06.1999. The petitioners then filed a Writ Appeal, being W.A.No.1780 of 1999.

(2.) Before the Division Bench, the petitioners contended that even if the orders of the second respondent for resuming the land are upheld, they have a right to seek reassignment under Section 4 of the Act. After noticing the said provision, the Division Bench disposed of the Writ Appeal on 07.12.1999 directing the revenue authorities to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law for reassignment of the land in favour of the petitioners.

(3.) The petitioners thereafter approached the District Collector by making a representation, dated 19.01.2000. The second respondent sent a report on 25.01.2001 to the District Collector in response to which the latter again vide order dated 05.01.2002 directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to take necessary action. The District Collector also brought to the notice of the Mandal Revenue Officer the decision of this Court in P.Gopal Reddy v. Mandal Revenue Officer, 1990 (1) An.W.R.205 = 1989 (3) ALT 14 (NRC), wherein it was held that when agricultural property became urban property fit for construction, the original assignee is not entitled for reassignment. At that stage, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition alleging that though the District Collector directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to take appropriate action, the respondents have not reassigned the land.