HON’BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No. 414 of 2006 Between: Smt Manjula and others .. Appellants AND The Joint Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy and others ..Respondents. Counsel for the Appellants: Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader for Assignment Dated: April 21, 2006 JUDGMENT: Per Sri G.S.Singhvi, CJ This is an appeal for setting aside order dated 9-3-2006 vide which the learned Single dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants along with their husband late Sri G.Narsimulu for quashing orders dated 20-11-1999 and 9-5-2000 passed by Mandal Revenue Officer, Narsapur Mandal, Medak District (respondent No.2) and Joint Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy (respondent No.1) respectively and also dismissed the contempt proceedings initiated by them. The facts: Appellant No.1 Smt Manjula purchased land admeasuring Ac.4-00 guntas comprised in Survey No.29/12 and another extent of Ac.0-36 guntas comprised in Survey No.29/9 of Malparthy Village by an unregistered sale deed dated 16-5-1975. Appellant No.2 Smt G.Lakshmi purchased land admeasuring Ac.4-00 guntas comprised in Survey No.29/12 and another extent of Ac.0-35 guntas comprised in Survey No.29/9. Late Sri G.Narsimulu, who is said to be the husband of appellants 1 and 2 also purchased land admeasuring Ac.4-25 guntas comprised in Survey No.29/8 of Malparthy Village. Their vendors namely, Shamsher Baig, Ismail Baig, Hyder Baig, Ghouse Baig, Naseer Baig and Hussain Baig were landless poor persons who had been granted assigned lands. After coming into force the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, ‘the Act’), respondent No.2 issued notices to the appellants and their husband to show cause against the proposed resumption of the land. They filed the reply to contest the show-cause notice. After considering the same, respondent No.2 passed order dated 20-11-1999 whereby he ordered resumption of the land by holding that the transaction between the assignees and the appellants and their husband were null and void because, the same had been made in violation of Section 3 of the Act. Writ Petition No.25528 of 1999 filed by the appellants and their husband against order dated 20-11-1999 was disposed of by this Court on 13-12-1999 by giving them liberty to file revision. Accordingly they filed revision before respondent No.1 who dismissed the same, vide order dated 9-5-2000. Feeling aggrieved by orders dated 20-11-1999 and 9-5-2000, the appellants and their husband filed Writ Petition No.8801 of 2000. They also filed an application for interim relief. By order dated 17-5-2000 this Court suspended the orders impugned in the writ petition. After some time the appellants and their husband filed contempt case No. 36 of 2006 by alleging that despite the interim order passed by the Court, the non-applicants had dispossessed them. Simultaneously, the official respondents filed Writ Appeal No. 446 of 2006 for vacating the interim order. The learned Single Judge heard the writ petition and miscellaneous petitions together with the contempt petition and dismissed the same by holding that the transaction involving purchase of land by the appellants and their husband from the assignees was null and void. Learned Single Judge also negatived the plea of the appellants and their husband that they were landless poor persons by observing that Sri G.Narsimulu was a bank employee and petitioners 1 and 2 (appellants 1 and 2 herein) are his wives. In the opinion of the learned Single Judge the purchases made by the appellants and their husband were hit by the fictional prohibition contained in Section 3 of the Act. The learned Single Judge referred to the judgment of the Division Bench in K.Annapurnamma v. P.Koteswara Rao and held that by virtue of Section 3 (1) of the Act, the transfer of land assigned to the landless poor persons made before or after coming into force of the Act is treated as null and void and, therefore, no right or title can be acquired by the purchasers. We have hears Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy and are convinced that the view taken by the learned Single Judge, which is essentially founded on the law declared by the Division Bench, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. A bare reading of Section 3 (1) of the Act shows that the provision contained therein is retroactive and does not only affects the transfers made after the commencement of the Act but also those made before the commencement of the Act. In the writ petition filed by them, the appellant did not challenge the constitutionality or vires of Section 3 (1) of the Act. Therefore, it is not open to them to contend that the respondents could not have taken action for resumption of the land which had been purchased by them from the assignees prior to 21-1-1977. The argument of the learned counsel that the purchases made by the appellants and their husband should be treated as protected by sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act deserves to be negatived on the short ground that the appellants are not landless poor persons within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellants made strenuous efforts to persuade us to protect the possession of the appellants by saying that they are extremely poor and after the demise of their husband they are hand to mouth. In our opinion, this submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted, because no material has been placed on the record of the writ petition to show that the appellants fall in the category of landless poor persons. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed. However, it is made clear that dismissal of the writ petition filed by the appellants and their husband and this appeal shall not preclude the appellants from filing an application before the competent authority for assignment of land to them by showing that they fulfill the statutory conditions prescribed for the purpose. G.S.SINGHVI, CJ April 21, 2006 G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J GRR