THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.1669 & 3831 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: The dispute in these writ petitions is one and the same. Hence, they are disposed of through common order. The parties are referred to, as arrayed in W.P.No.1669 of 2008. The petitioners approached the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the 2nd respondent herein, with a request to issue No Objection Certificate (NOC), in respect of Acs.5.04 guntas of land in Sy.No.228/2 of Abdullapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. They pleaded that, originally the land was assigned to one Sri Chalasani Nagabhushanam, a freedom fighter, in the year 1982, and he transferred the same in favour of his daughter-in-law, Smt.Ch.Rajya Lakshmi. Rajya Lakshmi said to have sold the land in favour of the petitioners through two sale deeds, dated 08-02-2006. Their names were mutated in the revenue records, and with a view to alienate the land, they approached the 2nd respondent for NOC. Smt.B.Manemma, the 5th respondent, filed objection before the 2nd respondent, opposing the issuance of NOC in favour of the petitioners. She pleaded that her father-in-law by name, Laxma Reddy, an Ex-serviceman, was assigned this very land, admeasuring 5 acres, in the year 1967, and that after his death, their family members are cultivating the same. Her husband is also said to have died. Through order dated 18-01-2008, the 2nd respondent held that the 5th respondent failed to prove that the land was assigned to her father-in-law. He refused to issue NOC to the petitioners, on the ground that the original assignee, i.e, Chalasani Nagabhushanam, had violated the conditions of assignment. While the petitioners feel aggrieved by the rejection of NOC, as well as the direction issued by the 2nd respondent, for resumption of land, the 5th respondent feels aggrieved by the rejection of her claim. Heard Sri P. Hema Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P. Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondents 1 to 4. Though the matter before the 2nd respondent was confined to issuance of NOC, he virtually treated it as an adjudication of title, between the petitioners, on the one hand, and respondent No.5, on the other hand. The contentions advanced on behalf of the respective parties were noted, in detail. A clear observation is made to the effect that, in spite of several opportunities being granted to the 5th respondent, no material was placed before the 2nd respondent, to substantiate the assignment in favour of her father-in-law. In fact, her case was that, the proceedings of assignment of land and other related documents were lost by them. Across the Bar, it is stated that the 5th respondent had since traced the original deed of assignment. A finding was recorded by the 2nd respondent to the effect that the assignment made in favour of Chalasani Nagabhushanam, is genuine. As long as that assignment holds good, the claim made by the 5th respondent cannot be entertained in the proceedings of that nature. If the 5th respondent is so advised, she can file a suit for declaration of title, duly impleading the affected parties. So far as the direction issued by the 2nd respondent for resumption of land is concerned, he has no jurisdiction to issue directions to the Tahsildar. The 2nd respondent lost site of the fact that he was dealing with a totally different matter, and not the proceedings under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act. Further, he has encroached in to the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar by specifically directing the resumption of land. When that was not the subject-matter of the proceedings before him, the observation made by the 2nd respondent in this regard, cannot be sustained in law. For the foregoing reasons, W.P.No.1669 of 2008 is allowed, setting aside the impugned order, in so far as it recorded a finding as regards the transfer made in favour of the petitioners. It is directed that, in case no proceedings are initiated under A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, on his own accord, within two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the 2nd respondent shall be under obligation to consider the matter afresh, without reference to the provisions of that Act. W.P.No.3831 of 2008 is disposed of, leaving it open to the 5th respondent to work out her remedies by filing a suit. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ Dt.03-03-2009. L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. KO