THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.29385 of 2011 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to have the proceedings of respondent Nos.4 and 3 dated 05.05.2011 and 14.07.2011 respectively set aside. The petitioner would submit that an extent of Ac.3.06 cents of land in Sy.No.930/1-B of Penumuru Village and Mandal, Chittoor District was assigned in favour of Sri J.Venkatarayudu; the sons of Sri J.Venkatarayudu sold the aforesaid extent on 28.09.1939 and 01.03.1940 in favour of Sri G.Vemulachetty who, in turn, sold it in favour of Sri Subbaiah Devara on 29.04.1940 who died leaving behind him his son; and, out of the total extent of Ac.3.06 cents, the petitioner had purchased Ac.2.86 cents for valid consideration from the legal heirs of Sri Subbaiah Devara. While matters stood thus the Tahsildar, Penumuru Mandal, Chittoor District (fourth respondent), by proceedings dated 05.05.2011, cancelled the patta granted on 18.01.1933. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor District (third respondent) who, by order dated 14.07.2011, dismissed the appeal. Sri G.Seena Kumar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would assert that written submissions were filed by the petitioner before the third respondent contending that the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (‘Act 9 of 1977’) were not applicable since the assignment was made in the year 1933 when there was no prohibition for alienation of assigned lands; and, since Act 9 of 1977 itself was not applicable, the fourth respondent lacked jurisdiction to initiate action under Act 9 of 1977. Learned Counsel would submit that the petitioner would withdraw the revision filed before the second respondent since he has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Tashildar would have jurisdiction to cancel the assignment only if the provisions of Act 9 of 1977 are applicable. In case the conditions of assignment do not contain a non- alienation clause, or were issued under the rules then in force which did not prohibit alienation, the provisions of Act 9 of 1977 would not apply. In such an event, initiation of proceedings under Act 9 of 1977 would be wholly without jurisdiction. The basic jurisdictional facts, to contend that the provisions of the Act were not applicable, were referred to by the petitioner in his written submissions filed before the third respondent. The third respondent was duty bound to examine these contentions since they affect the very jurisdiction of the fourth respondent to initiate action under Act 9 of 1977. It is well settled that mere existence of an alternate remedy would not bar exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more so when the very jurisdiction of the authority is put in issue. As this question ought to have been considered by the third respondent while disposing of the appeal, and as this contention has not been dealt with in the order under challenge, I consider it appropriate to set aside the order of the third respondent dated 14.07.2011, direct him to consider this question, as also the other contentions raised by the petitioner in his written submissions, afresh and thereafter pass orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from today. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:15.11.2011 Note:CC in one week bo usd