THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 19423 of 2001. ORDER: Heard Sri.Nalini Kumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Assignment for respondents 1 to 3. There is no representation for the 4th respondent though the name of Sri.M.V. Narsimha Charya who filed valakath for the 4th respondent is reflected in the cause list. This writ petition is directed against the order dt. 30.6.2001 passed by the 1st respondent in purported exercise of powers under Section 4-B of the A.P. Assignment of Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act 1977 (for short ‘Act 9 of 1977’), setting aside the order dt. 30.3.1999 passed by the 2nd respondent. There was a meandering course of litigation leading to impugned order. The petitioner claims that his father came into possession of Ac. 4.26 cents in R.S.No. 414/2 of Bapirajugudem village of West Godavari District having purchased the same prior to 1963 (it is not stated whether by a registered, unregistered or even by an instrument) and claims to have raised coconut garden therein since long. The petitioner also asserts that the name of his father and thereafter his name was entered in the revenue records and that he is paying taxes for the schedule property since long. The 4th respondent claims assignment of Ac. 4.26 cents under a D-Form patta issued by the Tahsildar concerned on 26.4.1978. He filed O.S.No. 300 of 1988 before the Jr. Civil Judge, Eluru against one V.Venkateshwar Rao seeking injunctive relief in respect of the said land. Later the 4th respondent withdrew O.S.No. 300 of 1988 on 23.1.1990. The 4th respondent again filed a petition against the said V.Ventateshwar Rao before the 3rd respondent under the provisions of Act 9 of 1977 seeking his eviction from the property. The petitioner was however not impleaded as a party to these proceedings. By an order dt. 16.08.1990, the 3rd respondent came to a conclusion that since there was an assignment in favour of the 4th respondent, the possession of V.Venkateshwar Rao over the land in question was in transgression of the provisions of Act 9 of 1977 and directed his eviction. On the strength of the order dt. 16.8.1990 of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner was sought to be dispossessed. Thereupon, the petitioner filed O.S.No. 348 of 1990 before the Jr. Civil Judge, Eluru against the State of A.P. and the 4th respondent seeking a declaration that the order of the 3rd respondent dt. 16.8.1990 is without jurisdiction and for a permanent injunction restraining the State and its officers and the 4th respondent herein (2nd defendant) from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property till he is evicted from the suit schedule property under due process of law. By the Judgement and decree dt. 28.10.1996, O.S.No. 348 of 1996 was decreed declaring that the order of the 3rd respondent dt. 16.8.1990 was without jurisdiction and arbitrary and also granting permanent injunction restraining the State and its Officers and the 4th respondent from interfering with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till he is evicted there-from under due process of law. Thereafter, by the order dt. 14.7.1997, the 3rd respondent, on an application by the 4th respondent under Section 4 of Act 9 of 1977 directed the eviction of the petitioner from the property and restoration of the same to the 4th respondent. The 3rd respondent in this order except recording that the property is under the occupation and enjoyment of the petitioner who is also a landless poor person and that his father of the petitioner purchased the same from the 4th respondent, referred to no material in support of his conclusion that the father of the petitioner had purchased the land from the 4th respondent. In para 3 of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the petitioner pleads that his father A.Laxminarayana had acquired the property by purchase from one Khandavalli Aseervadam. Nothing is recorded to show whether Khandavalli Aseervadam is related to or is an ancestor of the 4th respondent who also bears incidentally the surname ‘Khandavalli’. Aggrieved by the order of the 3rd respondent dt. 14.7.1997, the petitioner preferred an appeal tothe 2nd respondent on 25.11.1998. By the order dt. 30.3.1999, the 2nd respondent allowed the appeal by holding that the 4th respondent’s complaint does not fall within the province of the provisions of Act 9 of 1977 since as per the records even by the date of assignment to the 4th respondent on 26.4.1978, there was a coconut garden in the property and the property was under the possession of the petitioner herein. Recording the above reasons, the 2nd respondent allowed the petitioner’s appeal and set aside the order of the 3rd respondent on 14.7.1997. There-against, the 4th respondent preferred a revision to the 1st respondent under the provisions of Section 4-B of Act 9 of 1977. This revision was allowed by the 1st respondent by the order impugned. During the entire proceedings before the respondents 1 to 3, there is no ascertainment of the crucial and jurisdictional fact namely whether the land is Government land; whether it is validly assigned to the 4th respondent; whether the petitioner derived possession or title to the property from the 4th respondent contrary to the provisions of the Act or whether in the facts and circumstances as available from the record, the assignment in favour of the 4th respondent by patta dt. 24.4.1988 itself is invalid. Without ascertaining the relevant facts including the above indicated, all the authorities proceeded on a premise that since there was an assignment, there is a presumption that the property belongs to the State and was rightly assigned to the 4th respondent. Even if the petitioner does not have an enforceable title to the property on account of the alleged purchase by his father from Khandavalli Aseervadam without any written instrument or without adequate stamp duty having been paid or an act of registration, to declare the petitioner as a violator of the provisions of the Act 9 of 1977, the authorities are required to record relevant facts as to whether the land is Government land and the petitioner has purchased the same in violation of the provisions of Act 9 of 1977 and if so since when. These are the necessary jurisdictional facts to be established before initiating proceedings and passing an order of eviction under the provisions of Act 9 of 1977. The order of the 1st respondent is unsustainable since no case is made out on the face of record of the petitioner having violated the provisions of Act 9 of 1977. In the circumstances, the order of the 1st respondent dt. 30.6.2001 impugned herein is unsustainable and is accordingly quashed. However, nothing in his order shall be construed as an observation or finding by this Court as to the petitioner’s title to the property or to the inherent vitality of proceedings under Act 9 of 1977. It is always open to the State to ascertain its title and legitimacy of the assignment in favour of the 4th respondent. It is also open to the petitioner, if so advised, to initiate appropriate proceedings before the proper forum for declaration of his title and for protection of his possession in case of any threat thereto. The writ petition is allowed as above. There shall however be no order as to costs. __________________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 18.11.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 19423 of 2001. ORDER: Dt. 18.11.2010.