THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.3218 of 1998 ORDER: Petitioner questions the order of the Joint Collector, Medak District at Sanga Reddy, dated 04-12-1997, wherein the Joint Collector cancelled the order, dated 10-04-1993, passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mulugu (M), Medak District. Even though the writ petition was dismissed against the 3rd respondent, still I am of the opinion that cause of action survives insofar as the order passed by the Joint Collector cancelling the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer with regard to restoration of assigned land in favour of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a landless poor person and he was assigned the land admeasuring Ac.5-30 gts., in Sy.No.71/8 situated at Chinna Thimmapur village, Mulugu (M), Medak District. It is stated that due to financial stringency, he approached one Mr.Shankaraiah for a loan and the said Shankaraiah gave him a sum of Rs.1,000/- by hypothecating the land belonging to him and he was made to sign on some papers. He never transferred the above land in the name of the said Shankaraiah or the 3rd respondent. It appears, the said Shankaraiah transferred the said land in favour of 3rd respondent. On coming to know the said fact, he made an application to the 2nd respondent for cancellation of document and to continue his name in the revenue records. The 2nd respondent, after conducting enquiry and after issuing notice to the 3rd respondent, had ordered eviction of the 3rd respondent and restored the land in his favour vide proceedings, dated 10-04-1993. Aggrieved thereby, the 3rd respondent filed an appeal before the Joint Collector and the Joint Collector vide his proceedings, dated 04-12-1997, while setting aside the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 10-04-1993, directed to resume the said land to the Government custody and also directed the 3rd respondent to approach the 2nd respondent for assignment of the above land on payment of market value. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is filed contending that the order passed by the Joint Collector is without giving any notice and without making him as a party. It is further stated that against the order passed the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 4(1) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “the Act”), an appeal lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer but not to the Joint Collector. A counter has been filed stating that the petitioner is not a landless poor person and in fact, he sold the said land vide registered Sale Deed No.263/81, dated 20-03-1981 in favour of Gagikar Shankarji, S/o.Malloji, R/o.Yaparala village of Ranga Reddy District for a consideration of Rs.7,500/-. A notice under Section 3(1) of the Act was issued to the 3rd respondent-Dr.D.Venkaiah Chowdary, who was in possession of the said land, and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mulugu, passed the order, dated 10- 04-1993, vide proceedings No.B/381/93 restoring 5 acres of the land in favour of the petitioner and directing the Government to take into custody the land admeasuring Ac.0-30 gts. Aggrieved thereby, the 3rd respondent filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, without making the petitioner as a party and the Joint Collector vide impugned order, dated 04-12-1997, while cancelling the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mulug, dated 10- 04-1993, directed to resume the said land to the Government custody. Under Section 3 of the Act, there is a total prohibition of transfer of assigned lands. If any assigned land is transferred, the said transfer shall be deemed to be null and void and it is for the Mandal Revenue Officer to pass an order for breaching the provisions of Section 3 of the Act and take possession of the said assigned land, after evicting the person in possession of the said assigned land, and restore the same in favour of the original assignee, if he is eligible as per the norms fixed under the Act. In the instant case, no doubt, the sale of the said land by the petitioner is in contravention of the Act, but while ordering restoration of 5 acres of land in favour of the petitioner, no enquiry has been conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer as to whether the petitioner is eligible for restoration of the said land or not. However, as the 3rd respondent is in possession of the said land, he filed an appeal before the Joint Collector. But, I am of the opinion that the Joint Collector is the appellate authority against the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer alone but not against the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Further, the Joint Collector also did not conduct any enquiry as to whether the petitioner is eligible for restoration of the said land or not. Therefore, I am of the opinion that both the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer as well as the Joint Collector are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the orders, dated 10-04-1993 and 04-12-1997, passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer as well as the Joint Collector and the matter is remitted to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mulug, for conducting enquiry as to whether the petitioner is eligible for restoration of the said land or not, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 22-07-2010 Prv