THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.498 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.1.22 guntas of land in Survey No.199 of Daira Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under a registered sale deed, dated 05.06.2000 from one Mr.Tirupati Lal. The land is said to have been assigned to one Mr.P.Ramaiah. He, in turn, sold the same in favour of Shetti Balaiah through a sale deed dated 27.07.1998 and the latter in turn sold it to Tirupatilal. The Tahsildar, Keesara Mandal, 3rd respondent herein initiated proceedings under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’) vis-à-vis the land. He proceeded as though Balaiah is the original assignee and Sreenivasulu is the purchaser in contravention of the provisions of the Act. He passed an order in June 2007 setting aside the same and directing resumption of the land to the Government. On coming to know the said proceedings, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, 2nd respondent herein. The appeal was dismissed on 18.02.2008. Revision filed under Section 4-B of the Act before the 1st respondent was also dismissed on 06.12.2008. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Assignment. It is no doubt true that the 3rd respondent is conferred with the power to initiate proceedings under Section 3 of the Act, whenever it comes to his notice that an assigned land has been transferred in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Whenever the land has been subjected to series of transfers, the person in possession of the land on the basis of the latest of the sales has to be issued notice, since he is the affected person. In the instant case, the petitioner is the last purchaser and he was issued pattadar pass books also. In his anxiety to resume the land to the Government, the 3rd respondent did not even verify as to who was the original assignee and who is the person, that is in possession of the land. Two intermittent transferees were described as assignee and transferee respectively. A specific complaint of the petitioner before respondents 2 and 3 was that he was not issued notice, though he is the last purchaser and is in possession of the land. Respondents 2 and 3 did not even advert to this contention. After extracting the relevant contentions, cryptic observations were made to the effect that the transfer is in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The prohibition contained under the Act is not absolute. Several exceptions are provided for. For instance, in case, the transferee himself is a landless poor, consequences under the Act do not follow. Verification of the conditions of assignment would also become relevant. All this would have been possible, if only the affected party was issued notice. This Court is of the view that the entire matter must go before the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration and disposal after issuance of notice to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the orders passed by respondents 1 to 3 are set aside. The mater is remanded to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration and disposal, after issuing notice to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 21.01.2009 Note: Issue C.C. in two days. (B/o) JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.498 of 2009 Date: 21.01.2009 JSU