ORDER : 1. Heard Sri Davalaraju Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri Y. Subba Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. The prayer made in the Writ Petition is as follows: “For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to proceedings of the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, dated 05.02.2011 in D. Dis. No. (E2)/7608/2006 preferred against the proceedings of the Sub Collector, Madanapalle dated 11.05.2006 in D. Dis. (B1)/2503/2005 preferred against the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Madanapalle in Roc. A/1115/93, dated 15.09.1993 peruse the same and quash the proceedings of the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Chittoor dated 05.02.2011 by issuing an appropriate Writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. The Writ Petitioner has challenged various proceedings wherein and whereby Ac. 0-06 cents of land allotted to the Writ Petitioner, namely Madanapalle Ex-Servicemen Association, is sought to be cancelled on the ground of violation of conditions of allotment. 4. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the original grant of Ac. 0-03 cents in Sy. No. 298/2 and Ac. 0-03 cents in Sy. No. 298/3 by proceedings dated 26.03.1982 bearing R. Dis. No. 16583/80. These proceedings indicate that the Government, when it had proposed to allot the subject lands, had issued a Notice and published it on 01.11.1980. As no objections were received and Village Officers and the local Farmers have also recommended the proposal, the Madanapalle Municipal Authority, in their Resolution No. 298, dated 16.12.1980 and No. 361, dated 12.02.1981 have also given their consent in support of the proposal for alienation. The Writ Petitioner wanted to utilise this land for construction of a building for the benefit of the activities of the members of the Association. 5. The value of the land was assessed on the basis of capitalization method, taking the value of the land as per the basic value register, which has been fixed at Rs. 4,800/- per acre. Basing on this price, the Sub-Collector, Madanapalle has recommended the adoption of this rate at the rate of Rs. 4,800/- per acre. 5. The value of the land was assessed on the basis of capitalization method, taking the value of the land as per the basic value register, which has been fixed at Rs. 4,800/- per acre. Basing on this price, the Sub-Collector, Madanapalle has recommended the adoption of this rate at the rate of Rs. 4,800/- per acre. It is stated in the allotment Order dated 26.03.1982 that by applying the capitalisation value, the value of the land in Sy. No. 289/2 to an extent of Ac. 0-03 cents and the land in Sy. No. 289/3 to an extent of Ac. 0-03 cents works out to Rs. 288/- (for the total extent of land coming to 288 sq. yards). Basing on the above mentioned criteria, by these proceedings dated 26.03.1982, the land in Sy. No. 289/2 measuring Ac. 0-03 cents and in Sy. No. 289/3 measuring Ac. 0-03 cents in Bandameedakammapalle Village had been alienated in favour of Ex-Servicemen Association, Madanapalle for constructing “Sainik Bhavan” subject to the usual conditions appended in the Annexure. 6. It is stated by Sri Davalaraju Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner that though this document mentioned that the alienation in favour of the Writ Petitioner is subject to usual conditions appended in the Annexure, in fact, no such Annexure appended to this order was ever supplied to the Writ Petitioner. 7. Vide proceedings bearing ROC No. A/1115/93, dated 15.09.1993, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Madanapalle has issued Notice to show cause, as to why the land alienated to the Association should not be resumed by the Government for violation of the conditions of alienation. 7. Vide proceedings bearing ROC No. A/1115/93, dated 15.09.1993, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Madanapalle has issued Notice to show cause, as to why the land alienated to the Association should not be resumed by the Government for violation of the conditions of alienation. According to this Notice, the Writ Petitioner Association is alleged to have breached the conditions attached to the original alienation that the Association/Writ Petitioner did not obtain prior permission of the District Collector for construction of any building on the land alienated; that according to Condition No. 4 of alienation, if any of the conditions of the alienation are infringed, the Government is at liberty to resume the land without payment of compensation if any, for the land alienated; that in the present case the Ex-Servicemen Association, instead of constructing a Sainik Bhavan such as a meeting hall or rest house etc., has constructed a shopping complex with five rooms, that too without obtaining any permission from the District Collector, Chittoor as per condition No. 2; that the Writ Petitioner has leased out shopping complex through the registered document No. 967/87, dated 11.02.1987 for remunerative purpose collecting a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- per month for a period of 20 years by granting sub lease rights also in favour of the tenants. It was felt that these were the violations of conditions attached to the alienation. 8. Though a specific query was posed to Sri Y. Subba Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, as regards the conditions which are attached to the alienation dated 26.03.1982, the query of this Court did not elicit any convincing response, much less production of conditions attached to the alienation. It appears that the Official Respondents have fallen in error in relying on the conditions of alienation under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. When lands are assigned under this enactment (Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977), the Government enjoins several conditions for uninterrupted enjoyment of such assigned land with a particular clause/condition that breach of any of the conditions would entail cancellation of the assigned lands and resumption to the Government. 9. As seen from the proceedings dated 26.03.1982, the alienation of Ac. 0-06 cents of land is not free, but it is as per the market value. 9. As seen from the proceedings dated 26.03.1982, the alienation of Ac. 0-06 cents of land is not free, but it is as per the market value. The Writ Petitioner was parted with the consideration which is fixed by the Government basing on its own calculation, which is clearly reflected in the said proceedings dated 26.08.1982, that the rate of lands is assessed basing on the Basic Value Register and thereby fixing Rs. 4,800/- as the value of the land per acre and proportionately the computation on the basis of capitalisation method, worked out to Rs. 288/- for the extent of 288 sq. yards. 10. While this being the actual situation where the Government has alienated the land for consideration that too basing on the market assessment of the land, it does not lie in the mouth of the official respondents to contend that the land can be resumed on account of the breach of certain conditions. Since the Writ Petitioner has purchased the land by paying market value (as assessed by the Competent Authority), it cannot be countenanced that the Official Respondent can invoke its powers to resume the land by resorting to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. It is pertinent to mention herein that these conditions were never supplied to the Writ Petitioner either at the time of alienation or along with the show cause notice which proposed resumption of land except citing certain conditions. 11. Sri Davalaraju Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner has also placed on record a Judgment of this Court, rendered by a learned Single Judge in The Merchant Association Suryapet (Regd) vs. The District Revenue Officer, Nalgonda and Another, AIR 1976 AP 430 . The relevant portions of the Judgment at paragraph Nos. 8, 11, 12 and 13 are extracted as under: 8. On 29.11.1973, again the District Revenue Officer issued notice: “Since the Merchants' Association has failed to construct the park and town-hall for the purpose of public use and violated the condition of grant for the land in question, they have utilised the land for non-public purposes it is proposed to resume possession of Government land.” Asked the petitioner to show cause. The petitioner submitted their explanation. The petitioner submitted their explanation. On 31.5.1974, the District Revenue Officer held the petitioner failed to fulfill the conditions laid in the grant as: “The Association undertook the construction of rooms unauthorisedly and against the plans contemplated at the time of original grant made by the Civil Administrator. It failed to produce any permission from the Collector or the Government of such construction and failed to fulfill the conditions laid down in the original grant. The Merchants' Association has been given due show cause notice which was served on 4.12.1973 and it filed a written statement in this office on 21.1.1974 which also does not disclose any authority for raising the construction. In view of the above the breach of condition is apparent and therefore, I hereby order resumption of Ac. 1-26 sq. yards land allotted to Merchants' Association by the then Civil Administrator vide L. Dis. No. 3637/49 dated 2.2.1952, by the Government. 9. xxx xxx xxx 10. xxx xxx xxx 11. The short question, thus, is whether the Government can resume land in the circumstances, after satisfying themselves that the petitioner violated the conditions in the grant without reference to a civil court in their exercise of executive power. It is at this stage relevant to refer to the oft quoted observation of the Privy Council in Eshughayi Eleko vs. Government of Nigeria (Officer Administering), 1931 AC 662 at 670. The case arose in the following circumstances: 12. In 1861, the Ruling Chief Docemo of Lagos by Treaty ceded to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, the territory of Lagos. After the death of Docemo in 1920 Eshugbayi, known as Eleko was recognized in 1920 as successor chief of Lagos, as against the claims of his rival, Oyekan. On 6.8.1925, the Governor of Lagos deposed Eleoka and ordered him to leave the Province of Abeoketa Ijebu and Ondo and when he neglected to comply, Eleoka was deported to Oye Province. The question arose, the Chief-taincy either, or both Ordinarily these questions the courts (had to decide) after hearing the relevant evidence tendered by either side. In that connection Lord Atkin observed: “The Governor acting under the Ordinance acts only under the executive powers, and in no sense as a Court. As the executive he can only act in pursuance of the powers given to him by law. In that connection Lord Atkin observed: “The Governor acting under the Ordinance acts only under the executive powers, and in no sense as a Court. As the executive he can only act in pursuance of the powers given to him by law. In accordance with British jurisprudence no member of the executive can interfere with the liberty or property of a British subject except on the condition that he can support the legality of his action before a court of justice.” Such a principle was (held) a well established principle in common law in England and in Nigeria. These observations were followed as a principle in common law and applied in India first in the case of Gopalan vs. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27 and in many other cases later. 13. Applying the principle to the present case, the petitioner cannot in law, be evicted from the land by the Government in their executive power without recourse to civil court. If the land is to be resumed, it is the civil court that has to be satisfied and adjudicate whether the conditions were violated. This procedure is, in the words of Lord Atkin well-established principle and that principle applies with the same vigour and force in this country. The State of its Officer, therefore, cannot resume the land without recourse to the Court in exercise of their executive power and evict the petitioner. 12. Sri Davalaraju Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner has also placed on record another Judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Letter sent from Plot No. 338, Parvant Nagar, Borbanda, Hyderabad vs. The Collector and District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad and Another (W.P. Nos. 14795/2005, 13227 to 13230 of 2005, 10206 of 2005 and 14021 of 2005), wherein and whereby it is held: “Since the respondents have not denied the fact of assignment of land on collection of market value and once permission is granted under Section 47 of the Telangana Tenancy Act and sale transaction has been validated under Section 50-B, which is validated only to the lands which were granted on market value, the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampalli Mandal as confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division are liable to be set-aside and they are accordingly set-aside.” 13. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner submits that although this dictum of Division Bench is rendered under the Provisions of Telangana Tenancy Act, nevertheless it is applicable to the facts of this case because the land therein was alienated on collection of market value as consideration, which is permissible under certain categories of this enactment. 14. In any case, the undeniable facts, which reflect in the proceedings dated 26.03.1998 itself, are that the recommendation was made for grant of Ac. 0-06 cents of land for construction of Sainik Bhavan in favour of the Writ Petitioner Association; that the objections were called for but no objections were received in this regard; that the value of the land was assessed based on the value of the Basic Value Register and calculated by applying the capitalisation method value that worked out to Rs. 288/- and that this consideration was paid by the Writ Petitioner and accepted by the Official Respondents without any objection. 15. THE POINT FOR CONSIDERATION IS: Whether the alleged conditions annexed to the grant were in fact supplied to the Writ Petitioner at the time of the grant or at any time later; and whether such conditions are valid in law when the Government has received the market value as consideration. 16. Even upon pertinent enquiry, the Official Respondents have not been able to supply a copy of the Annexure containing conditions for alienation. In any case, the respondents, having charged the market value and received the said amount as consideration, again later raised objections as regards the utilisation of the land. It cannot be said that a charge of Rs. 200/- per month for each shop for about five shops is an act of profit-making by the Writ Petitioner. The income which could be received by the Writ Petitioner under lease is aggregated to Rs. 1,000/- per month which might have been utilised by the Association to meet with the Association expenditure. 17. This apart, the grant being made in the year 1982, it cannot be said that shops have been constructed by the Writ Petitioner in the area overnight. The proceedings have been initiated on 11.05.2006, although it is noted that the MRO has issued notice for resumption on 28.07.1993. 17. This apart, the grant being made in the year 1982, it cannot be said that shops have been constructed by the Writ Petitioner in the area overnight. The proceedings have been initiated on 11.05.2006, although it is noted that the MRO has issued notice for resumption on 28.07.1993. Having kept quiet for almost a decade, the Official Respondents are not entitled to initiate any resumption proceedings as if the grant was a public largess allotted to the Writ Petitioner free of cost. 18. In this view of the matter, this Writ Petition succeeds and the impugned proceedings are hereby set aside. Consequently, the possession as regards the subject premises is restored to the Writ Petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.