HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.NO.22488 OF 1999 Dt.23.7.2010 Between: Anantula Janga Reddy and another ..Petitioners And The Joint Collector, R.R.District at Hyderabad and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.NO.22488 OF 1999 ORDER: Petitioners – Anantula Janga Reddy and Anantula Veera Reddy both residents of Nagole Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, question the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, dated 25.3.1999 in Procs.No.B/8104/96 as illegal and arbitrary. It is stated that against the said order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division on 115.1999 in proceedings No.B1/2095/99 and the same is pending. They have also filed stay application along with the appeal and the 2nd respondent did not pass any orders on the said application. While the respondents are taking steps to dispossess the petitioners from the lands they have purchased, this writ petition has been filed and obtained interim stay of operation of the said order. Heard both the learned counsel. As the petitioners failed to take steps for payment of batta for issuing fresh notice on the 4th respondent, the writ petition was dismissed by order, dated 21.4.2009 against the 4th respondent, the original assignee. The writ petition survives only against respondents 1 to 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the 4th respondent Chintala Gandaiah has been assigned the Government land to an extent of Ac.3.26 guntas in S.No.87 of Nagole in the year 1961 in Form ‘G’ in File No.E1/5402/61 by the then Tahsildar, Hyderabad East Taluk and after obtaining permission under Sections 47 and 48 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950 vide proceedings in D.Dis.No.B3/6333/1966, dated 1.10.1966, alienated the said land to the petitioners. The alleged permission said to have been granted by the then Tahsildar, Hyderabad East, indicates that the 4th respondent was permitted to alienate the patta land bearing S.No.87/5 Dry comprising Ac.3.27 guntas. It does not indicate whether it was an assigned land or not. But, the permission appears to have been obtained as if it was a patta land. It is contended by the petitioners that it was a patta land, but not assigned land. But, however, it is not in dispute that the said land was purchased by the petitioners. After obtaining permission, the petitioners purchased the said land vide registered sale deed dated 7.10.1966 and the patta was implemented in the revenue records in the year 1967. While so, the 4th respondent filed petition under Section 4(1)(b) of A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, the Act) stating that he is a landless poor and the said land is a Government land and considering his poorness the Government assigned the said land in his favour and the petitioners being local residents and having influence and having number of lands at Nagole village got obtained a registered sale deed in their favour in 1966 under undue influence and coercion. It is stated that the 4th respondent being an illiterate and landless poor approached the petitioners to give back his assigned land, but the petitioners have refused for the same and therefore he has filed the said application for restoration of his assigned land in his favour. The said petition filed by the 4th respondent before the Mandal Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District was transferred to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Uppal Mandal, to take up the case under the provisions of the Act and to dispose of the same on merits. Accordingly, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Uppal Mandal, vide his order dated 25.3.1999 in proceedings No.B/8104/96 after issuing notice to the petitioners as well as 4th respondent held that under Section 3(1) of the Act there is prohibition of transfer of assigned land even before the commencement of the Act and any transfer or acquisition made in contravention sub-section (1) of Section 3 shall be deemed to be null and void. But, however, under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act the purchaser of the said assigned land is a landless poor and if the said purchase is in good faith for valuation consideration from the original assignee prior to commencement of the Act and the said purchase is for the purpose of cultivation alone, the prohibition shall not apply. But, as per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Dharma Reddy v. Sub Collector, Bodhan[1] any transfer of the assigned land even prior to the commencement of the Act shall be deemed to have been null and void. Accordingly, the aforesaid orders were passed for resumption of the said land from the petitioners, who are purchasers of the assigned land. It is the case of the petitioners that the appeal said to have been filed on 11.5.1999 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, Hyderabad is pending in Proceedings No.B1/2095/99. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have already availed the remedy of appeal under Section 4-A(1) of the Act and it is for the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the appeal. I am of the opinion that the appellate authority is required to consider as to whether the Tahsildar, Hyderabad East Taluk, is entitled to accord permission for alienation of the assigned land under Sections 47 and 48 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, whether the petitioners are landlords or poor and whether the said purchase was in good faith and for valuable consideration from the original assignee for the purpose of cultivation. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 2nd respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, Hyderabad, to consider and dispose of the pending appeal on the above issues apart from other grounds raised by the petitioners, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioners, in accordance with law. Till then, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 23.7.2010 kpr [1] AIR 1987 AP 160 equivalent to 1987(1) ALT FB 124