THE HONOUABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P. No. 2182 of 2008 Date:11-02-2008 Between: Kolluri Purnachandra Rao and three others .. PETITIONERS AND The District Collector, Machilipatnam and two others .. RESPONDENTS ORDER: The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in declaring the proceedings in Rc.A.677/2006, dated 08.05.2007, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners’ land in Sy.No.209/2B situated at Penamaluru village and mandal, Krishna District. It is the case of the petitioners that the first petitioner purchased land an extent of Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.209/2B, second petitioner purchased land an extent of Ac.0.20 cents, 3rd and 4th petitioners purchased land an extent of Ac.0.40 cents each in Sy.No.209/2B, situated at Penamaluru village and mandal, Krishna District. Admittedly, all the sale deeds are after the commencement of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). The first petitioner purchased the said land on 07.11.2001, the second petitioner on 12.10.2002, the third petitioner on 03.05.1997 and the 4th petitioner on 12.05.1992. It is the case of the petitioners that while so, show cause notices in Form No.II under Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 (for short ‘the Rules’) in proceedings Rc.A- 677/2006, dated 08.05.2007 were issued and without passing any final orders, they are sought to be dispossessed from the said lands for the purpose of allotting the said lands for house sites. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the landless poor persons and therefore, as per the Division Bench judgment of this Court in K. SRIRAMACHANDRA MURTHY RAJU v. STATE OF A.P. AND OTHERS[1] a n d in case of ABDUL KHAYOOM v. MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, AMRABAD MANDAL[2] in cases wherever the assigned lands have been purchased by the landless poor under Section 3(5) of the Act, the provisions of the Act are not applicable. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that after show cause notices were issued to the petitioners, they have not filed any explanations. It is stated that the notices were also issued to the original assignees i.e. Kolluru Sudershanam of Penamaluru village and Bukya Ramulu, Katta Polaiah and Bhukya Seethaiah in whose favour an extent of Ac.0.20 cents was assigned and the said original assignees also have not filed any explanation and accordingly, as the assigned lands are found in possession of the petitioners in violation of sub-sections 1 and 2 of Section 3 of the Act, the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar, Penamaluru resumed the said lands by passing the final orders under Section 4(1) of the Act. vide orders dated 02.07.2007 and 05.07.2007. Insofar as the contention of the petitioners that as per the said judgments, the provisions of the said Act are not applicable in cases wherever the assigned lands have been purchased by the landless poor under Section 3(5) of the Act, a perusal of Section 3(5) of the Act goes to show that the provisions of the Act shall not apply to an assigned land which was purchased by a landless poor person in good faith and for valuable consideration from the original assignee or his transferee prior to the commencement of this Act and which is in possession of such person for purposes of cultivation or as a house site on the date of such commencement. Admittedly, the petitioners have not purchased the said lands prior to the commencement of the Act. Therefore, the only exception to Section 3(5) of the Act exempting the assigned lands are that the purchase of the said land must be prior to the commencement of the Act 9 of 1977. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioners cannot have any basis of the aforesaid judgments. However, in the aforesaid judgments it was only directed to conduct enquiry as to whether the assigned lands were purchased prior to the commencement of the Act and whether the purchasers are landless poor. Against the said orders, there is an effective alternative remedy available to the petitioners under Section 4A(1) of the Act by way of filing an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned. In view of the effective alternative remedy available to the petitioners, I am not inclined to admit the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to avail the remedy of appeal, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Date:11.02.2008 Ccm [1] 1997 (1) ALD 564 (D.B.) [2] 1996-ALT-1-209