L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners contend that the land in survey No. 23-1a of Kakkalapalli Village. Anantapur Mandal, Anantapur District admeasuring Ac. 15-95 cents was assigned to one Boya Subbigadu way back in the year 1929. The land has since been transferred in the year 1969 in favour of the grandfather of the petitioners for consideration. The name of the grandfather of the petitioners and thereafter the name of their father has been incorporated in the revenue records. Petitioners were also issued pattadar pass books and their names were entered in the revenue records. ( 2 ) THE President of All India Federation of trade Unions. Anantapur, has submitted a representation dated 27-12-2001 to first respondent-District Collector, Anantapur requesting for grant of house site pattas in respect of as many as 1000 beneficiaries. On a direction issued by the first respondent, the Mandal Revenue Officer, the third respondent had identified the land of the petitioners for such assessment (sic. assignment ). In fact he has addressed a letter dated 5-3-2002 to the first respondent. On coming to know of the same, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 7-11-2002 stating that the land cannot be resumed since there was no condition prohibiting alienation. ( 3 ) APPREHENDING that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 would proceed to resume the land and assign it to various beneficiaries, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking appropriate directions. During the pendency of the writ petition, second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, anantapur had issued notice dt. 25-1-2003 to the assignees directing them to show cause as to why the land could not be resumed on the ground that the conditions of assessment (sic. assignment) are violated. ( 4 ) THE petitioners urged several contentions touching on facts and law. According to them, there did not exist any condition prohibiting alienation in the year 1929 and it was only in the year 1955 such conditions were incorporated for the first time. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government pleader for assignment and Sri O. Manohar reddy for respondent No. 4. ( 6 ) THIS writ petition is filed on the basis of apprehension. However, the apprehension is fortified, with the issuance of notice dated 25-1-2003 by the second respondent. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government pleader for assignment and Sri O. Manohar reddy for respondent No. 4. ( 6 ) THIS writ petition is filed on the basis of apprehension. However, the apprehension is fortified, with the issuance of notice dated 25-1-2003 by the second respondent. This notice proceeds on the footing that the assignee as well as transferees had violated the conditions of assignment. He did not choose to verify as to whether the order of assignment dated 2-12-1929 contained any such conditions. The proceedings were not issued under A. P. Assignment of Lands (Prohibition and Alienation) Act, 1977. In his letter dated 5-3-2002, the third respondent took the view that the land of the petitioners is available to be assigned to various beneficiaries. He did not even choose to verify the nature of ownership and possession over the land, as at present ( 7 ) UNDER these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the respondents cannot be permitted to resume the land in question. It is clearly pointed out that the ownership or possession by the petitioners is not in violation of any statutory provision. The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the notice dated 25-1-2003 issued by the second respondent and directing that any proceedings against the petitioners shall be only after indicating the alleged violation of any specific provision of law or condition of assignment and not otherwise.