THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1183 of 2003 Date: 16.11.2009 Between: Government of A.P. rep., by the Secretary, Revenue (Assn.) Department and others. .... Appellants AND Nitesh Kumar Makhooriya .. Respondents. THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1183 of 2003 Oral Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The order dated 9.8.2001 in Writ Petition No. 33825 of 1997 whereby the learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Adilabad in Rc. No. C/7006/92 dated 19.11.1997, is assailed by the State and its Officers. By the proceedings dated 19.11.1997, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Adilabad cancelled the assignment granted in favour of one Mirza Mohammad Ali Baig. The Writ Petitioner, since deceased and represented by his LR, Respondent No.2 herein, claiming to be the purchaser of the land from the said assignee, challenged the cancellation proceedings. The subject land had been assigned by way of patta No. 156 dated 25.4.1356 Fasli (25.4.1946) to Mirza Mohammed Ali Baig under the Laoni Rules,1347 Fasli. When the said patta was sought to be cancelled on the ground that the land had not been brought under cultivation within the stipulated three years, the Board of Revenue directed the authorities not to cancel the patta on the said ground. The original assignee appears to have sold the subject land on 4.5.1970 by way of a registered document and the alienee in turn sold the subject land to the Writ Petitioner in the year 1973 under a registered sale deed. While matters stood thus, the authorities proposed to cancel the assignment on the ground that the alienation was hit by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands(Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘Act 9 of 1977’). After giving the Writ Petitioner an opportunity of hearing, the impugned proceedings dated 19.11.1997 came to be passed directing cancellation of the assignment and ordering resumption of the lands. Aggrieved thereby, the Writ Petitioner approached this Court by way of the Writ Petition. The learned single Judge took note of the fact that there was no condition barring alienation attached to the original assignment made in favour of Mirza Mohammed Ali Baig. The learned Judge also took note of the fact that the Board of Revenue, when it considered the matter in the light of the proposed cancellation for non-cultivation within the stipulated three years, was aware of the fact that the land had already changed hands, as Mirza Mohammed Ali Baig has disposed of the assigned lands. In spite of the same, the Board of Revenue took no steps for cancellation on the ground that the assignment barred such alienation. The learned Judge was of the opinion that Act 9 of 1997 would have application only if the pre-enactment assignment was made subject to the condition that the assignee would not alienate the said land. In the present case, as the learned Judge found that there was no such condition, he held that Act 9 of 1977 had no application to the facts of the case and accordingly allowed the Writ Petition setting aside the cancellation proceedings dated 19.11.1997. The learned Government Pleader for Assignment produced before us a translated copy of the original patta, whereby the land was assigned to Mirza Mohammed Ali Baig. A reading of the same reflects that there was no condition attached to the assignment that the assignee should not alienate the said land. In such view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge holding that Act 9 of 1977 had no application to the facts of the present case. The alienation by the original assignee, which in turn, resulted in the Writ Petitioner obtaining the title over the subject assigned land cannot be subjected to challenge by the Government or its Officers on the ground that the same is hit by the provisions of Act 9 of 1977. The Writ Appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 16th November, 2009 _________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J pnb