THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16687 of 2002 ORDER: By means of filing this writ petition, wrongly prayed for mandamus instead of certiorari, the petitioner seeks quashing the orders of the first respondent-Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate in D.Dis.No.3789/92/E-3, dated 07.08.2002, whereby the revision filed by the fourth respondent was allowed setting aside the order passed by the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur in proceedings No.D.Dis. (D-2)/45/91, dated 31.01.1991 and the order passed by the third respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Atmakur in R.Dis.82/89, dated 09.07.1991, and the Mandal Revenue Officer was requested to take necessary action and restore the land to the legal heirs of the assignee under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for brevity ‘Act 9 of 1977’) It is not in dispute that one Chimidi Obilesu, father of the fourth respondent, was assigned Acs.5.05 of land in Survey No. 89-2 of Talupur Village, Atmakur Manal, Ananthapur District under G.O.Ms.No.1142 dated 18.06.1954. The said Chimidi Obilesu sold away the said land in the year 1975 under a registered sale deed to one Harijana Chinna Naganna, who in turn sold the said land to the writ petitioner under registered sale deed dated 19.05.1988. After purchasing the said land, the petitioner applied to the Mandal Revenue Officer for transfer of the land in his name. Acting on the representation, the Mandal Revenue Officer transferred the land in favour of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 08.07.1991 as per the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 31.01.1991. Aggrieved by the said order, the fourth respondent i.e., the legal heir of the original assignee filed a petition before the Joint Collector, for setting aside the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer and to restore the land in his favour. The Joint Collector disposed of the claim of the fourth respondent on 15.11.1991 with a direction to the fourth respondent to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer. Thereupon, the fourth respondent approached this Court and filed W.P.No.2545 of 1992, which was disposed of on 21.02.1992 observing that the Mandal Revenue Officer had passed order under Section 3(5) of Act 9 of 1977 pursuant to the orders issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer to whom a reference was made by the Mandal Revenue Officer before passing the order impugned therein; that since the Revenue Divisional Officer has already taken a decision, he cannot be a Judge of his own cause and filing an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer would serve no purpose and that in view of the peculiar circumstances, the petitioner therein was justified in straight away filing the revision without filing an appeal and accordingly set aside the order passed by the Joint Collector dated 15.11.1991 and directed the Joint Collector to entertain the revision and dispose of the same on merits. Pursuant to the said order dated 21.02.1992, the Joint Collector entertained the revision and allowed the same by the impugned order dated 07.08.2002 stating that the petitioner herein is not entitled to the benefit under Section 3(5) of Act 9 of 1977, since the land has been purchased by him on 19.05.1988 i.e., after coming into force Act 9 of 1977 on 21.01.1977, and therefore, it is hit by the provisions of Act 9 of 1977. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the land in question was originally purchased by Harijana Chinna Naganna, the vendor of the petitioner, in the year 1975 i.e., much prior to coming into force Act 9 of 1977 and therefore, the said Chinna Naganna is entitled to the benefit under Section 3(5) of Act 9 of 1977; that since the petitioner stepped into the shoes of Chinna Naganna, the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit under Section 3(5) of Act 9 of 1977 and that against the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer an appeal lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer, but the revision filed by the fourth respondent before the Joint Collector is not maintainable. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. This Court does not find any merit in any of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The first contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to the benefit under Section 3(5) of Act 9 of 1977 on stepping into the shoes of his vendor, has no force since Section 3 of Act 9 of 1977 prohibits transfer of lands, before or after the commencement of this Act, assigned by the Government to a landless poor person for the purposes of cultivation or as a house-site then, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force or in the deed to transfer or other document relating to such land, it shall not be transferred and shall be deemed never to have been transferred and accordingly no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer. Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of Act 9 of 1977 is an exception to the prohibition where the assigned land which was purchased by a landless poor person in good faith and for valuable consideration from the original assignee or his transferee prior to the commencement of this Act and which is in the possession of such person for purposes of cultivation or as a house-site on the date of such commencement. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner has not purchased the property either from the original assignee or his transferee prior to the commencement of Act 9 of 1977 to avail the benefit under Section 3(5) of Act 9 of 1977. Coming to the next contention that the Joint Collector cannot entertain the revision, it also does not merit consideration for the reason that when the fourth respondent earlier filed W.P.No.2545 of 1992, against the order dated 15.11.1991 passed by the Joint Collector directing him to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer, this Court as aforementioned set aside the said order dated 15.11.1991 and directed the Joint Collector to entertain the revision filed by the fourth respondent and dispose of the same on merits. In GOVT. OF A.P. v. GUDEPU SAILOO[1], the Apex Court held that once a mandamus was issued to the Collector to hear and dispose of the explanation, the Collector alone had to consider and take a final decision in the matter. In view of the above, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that the Joint Collector will not have jurisdiction to entertain the revision. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 03.02.2011 va [1] (2000) 4 Supreme Court Cases 625