THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.25638 of 2001 DATED: 09.09.2009 Between: Korru Suryanarayana. …Petitioner and The Joint Collector, Vizianagaram, And others. …Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.25638 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner allegedly purchased land admeasuring Acs.4.30 cents in survey Nos.116, 117/1, 117/2 and 118/2 from one Devarapu Yerakannadora and Devarapu Veerababu under registered agreement of sale dated 21.05.1986. Having come to know that the third respondent passed orders under Section 4(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (the Act, for brevity), ordering that Indukuri Venkata Ramana Raju, allegedly in possession of the land, be dispossessed, the petitioner unsuccessfully filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, and a second appeal before the Joint Collector. In this writ petition, the petitioner assails the order of the Joint Collector – first respondent herein – in Rc.No.500/2001 E2, dated 10.12.2001. This Court heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the affidavit accompanying the writ petition and the orders passed by the respondents. From the various documents placed before this Court the following facts emerge. The land in survey Nos.116, 117/1, 117/2 and 118/2 admeasuring Acs.4.30 cents situated at Moolabeddavara Village was assigned to Devarapu Yerakannadora and Devarapu Veerababu, Sons of Gangulu, who statedly belong to Scheduled Tribe. The assigned land is inalienable. On enquiry, it was found that the lands were in possession of Indukuri Venkata Ramana Raju. Therefore, third respondent issued notice under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 1977, to the said Indukuri Venkata Ramana Raju. He did not respond. Therefore, by proceedings dated 27.12.1997, the third respondent ordered resumption of the land. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the second respondent under Section 4A of the Act. The same was dismissed on 01.02.2001. Yet again, the petitioner preferred a second appeal under Section 4A(2) of the Act before the Joint Collector, which was also dismissed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for money under registered agreement of sale and without notice to him, the third respondent could not have ordered resumption of the land. The submission of the petitioner cannot be accepted for two reasons. Along with the writ petition, no document is enclosed to show that he has purchased the land from the two assignees under agreement of sale. Secondly, he admits in the affidavit that he purchased the land from Devarapu Yerakannadora and Devarapu Veerababu, who are the original assignees. As found by the Tahasildar, land was under occupation of Indukuri Venkata Ramana Raju and not the petitioner herein. Therefore, the question of issuing notice to the petitioner does not arise. The Writ Petition is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 09.09.2009 vs