THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.1725 of 2010 ORDER: The 1st petitioner is the wife, and petitioners 2 and 3 are the children of late Saidayakar Rao. It is stated that an extent of Ac.4.62 cents of land in Sy.No.319/1 and 2, of Kothapalli Kounugunta Village, Dagadarti Mandal, Nellore District, was assigned in favour of Jaladanki Veeraswamy Naidu, the father of Saidayakar Rao, and that after the death of the assignee, it is said to have devolved upon his son. Saidayakar Rao died in the year 1999, and that the petitioners have become the owners of the land. The petitioners allege that they shifted their residence to Nellore, for their livelihood, and when they came back, the land was found to have been occupied by some persons, including the 4th respondent. Petitioners submitted a representation dated 30-03-2005 to the District Collector, Nellore, with a request to restore possession of the land to them. Their grievance is that no action has been taken thereon. Reference is made to an order dated 08-09-2004, stated to have been passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, under Section 4 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, (for short ‘the Act’), and the Rules made thereunder. The petitioners complain that the respondents 1 to 3 did not take any steps for restoration of their possession. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioners state that they have become the owners of the land, referred to above, by way of succession. Even if the petitioners continued to be the owners of the land, the respondents are not under obligation to protect the possession of the petitioners over it. In case the assignment in favour of the petitioners is subsisting, they can certainly file a suit, either for recovery of possession, or for injunction- simplicitor. The Act would come into play, only when an assignee transfers the land, in contravention of the conditions of assignment. In case an assigned land is occupied by third parties, there would not be any occasion to invoke the provisions of the Act. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, and if the petitioners are so advised, they can file a suit, to work out the remedies. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.02-02-2010. KO