ORDER Both the petitioners question the individual orders passed against them in resuming the assigned lands in their possession as confirmed by the appellate as well as revisional authorities. 2. In the case of the first petitioner, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District passed resumption orders in Rc.No.707/2005/A, dated 2-2-2006, resuming the lands purchased by her of an extent of Ac.21-62 cents in various survey numbers situated in Buddibanda village, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Aggrieved by the said order, she filed an appeal under Section 4-A of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, which was dismissed in Rc.No.593/2006/A, dated 26-11-2006. Against the said order, the first petitioner filed a revision before the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam under Section 4-B of the Act, which was also dismissed in Rc.No.586/2007 E.3, dated 17-9-2007. 3. In the case of the second petitioner, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District passed resumption orders in Rc.No.706/2005/A, dated 2-2-2006, resuming the lands purchased by her of an extent of Ac.35-61 cents in various survey numbers situated in Buddibanda village, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Aggrieved by the said order, she filed an appeal under Section 4-A of the Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, which was dismissed in Rc.No.594/2006/A, dated 26-11-2006. Against the said order, the second petitioner filed a revision before the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam under Section 4-B of the Act, which was also dismissed in Rc.No.587/2007 E.3, dated 17-9-2007. 4. Questioning the aforesaid resumption order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ravikamatham, which was confirmed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority, the petitioners, filed this writ petition, seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the said proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same. 5. The facts are that the first petitioner purchased the lands in an extent of Ac.21-62 cents from various assignees under various registered sale deeds in 2005. Similarly, the second petitioner purchased the lands in an extent of Ac.35-61 cents from various assignees in 2005. After purchase of the said assigned lands, it is stated that the petitioners have grown the mango and cashew gardens. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that during the course of enquiry, the Mandal Revenue Officer has filed to establish that the lands are assigned lands. After purchase of the said assigned lands, it is stated that the petitioners have grown the mango and cashew gardens. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that during the course of enquiry, the Mandal Revenue Officer has filed to establish that the lands are assigned lands. If really, the lands purchased by them are assigned lands, he ought to have communicated the particulars of assigned lands to the registering authority, as under Section 5 of the Act, there is a prohibition of registration of the assigned lands. As the list of assigned lands is not furnished to the registering officer, the Sub Registrar registered the sale deeds. It is further stated that the Mandal Revenue Officer, did not refer the D-Form Patta or assignment proceedings in his orders during the enquiry and no witness was examined and the assignment orders were not marked and there is no evidence either oral or documentary to establish that they are the assigned lands. The petitioners are the bonafide purchasers and therefore, they are entitled for the retention of the land. 7. The perusal of the resumption orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ravikamatham goes to show that the assignment particulars i.e., DR No., Date, Classification of the land, Extent, Survey number and name of the assignee has been furnished. Admittedly, the said lands have been purchased by the petitioners under various documents in 2005 itself. All the contentions raised in the explanation have been dealt with in detail by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ravikamatham. It is stated that all the assigned lands would be entered in the village records, Village Account No.10(1) adangal etc., as pattadars (D Form Patta holders) and admittedly, the first petitioner has acquired an extent of Ac. 21-62 cents covered by various survey numbers and the second petitioner has acquired an extent of Ac.35-61 cents of Buddibanda village under various sale deeds during the period of 2004-05 and the sale particulars also have been obtained by the Mandal Revenue Officer and all the lands have been sold either by original assignees or by their legal heirs. It is further stated that all the lands were notified under Section 22 of the Registration Act, 1908 after commencement of the Act. It is further stated that all the lands were notified under Section 22 of the Registration Act, 1908 after commencement of the Act. Admittedly, the petitioners are not the landless poor and even in respect of the lands purchased by the landless poor after the commencement of the Act, 1977, the protection under Section 3(5) of the Act is not available. Accordingly, the resumption orders have been passed in exercise of the powers vested under Section 4(1) of the Act 9 of 1977 for contravention of Sub Sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the Act. 8. The Appellate Authority also dealt in detail all the contentions raised by the petitioners and held that the said lands are the assigned lands and as the lands have been shown under the Village Account No.10(1) against the holdings of the assignees, therefore, the contentions of the petitioners that there is no documentary evidence is incorrect and untrue. 9. In so far as the contention that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit under Section 3(5) of the Act, it is stated that admittedly, the lands have been purchased after the commencement of the Act and the petitioners are not the landless poor and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit under Section 3(5) of the Act. 10. The contention of the petitioners that Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 (herein after referred to as "the rules") have not been complied with by furnishing list of assigned lands to the registering authority and therefore, it is not open for the Mandal Revenue Officer to resume the said lands, has been rejected on the ground that even assuming that Rule 4 has not been complied with, there cannot be any hindrance for exercise of the powers vested under the Mandal Revenue Officer under the provisions of the Act to resume the lands as the assigned lands cannot be alienated in any circumstances after the Act 9 of 1977 came into force. 11. The Revisional Authority also considered the contention of the petitioners in detail and dismissed the revisions, upholding the resumption orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer as confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 12. 11. The Revisional Authority also considered the contention of the petitioners in detail and dismissed the revisions, upholding the resumption orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer as confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 12. The Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 has been enacted to prohibit transfer of certain lands assigned to landless poor persons in the State of Andhra Pradesh. In the instant case, admittedly, the lands purchased by the petitioners are the lands assigned in favour of the landless poor. In the case of the first petitioner, lands were assigned to 12 persons of landless poor in small extents and they have alienated the said lands in favour of the first petitioner. In so far as the second petitioner is concerned, lands were assigned in favour of 14 persons of landless poor in small extents and the assignment proceedings of DR number and the date of assignment has been furnished. To rebut the said assignment particulars, the petitioners have not filed any document or adduced any evidence. 13. "Assigned land" means, lands assigned by the Government to the landless poor persons under the rules for the time being in force, subject to the condition of non-alienation and includes lands allotted or transferred to landless poor persons under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to land ceilings. Under Section 3(1) of the Act, the lands assigned either before or after commencement of the Act 9 of 1977 by the Government to a landless poor either for the purpose of cultivation or as a house site, shall not be transferred/alienated. Under Sub Section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, no landless poor person shall transfer any assigned land and no person shall acquire any assigned land either by purchase, gift, lease, mortgage, exchange or otherwise. As per Sub Section (3), any transfer or acquisition made in contravention of the provisions of Sub Section (1) or Sub Section (2) of Section 3 shall be deemed to be null and void. Even if there is any decree is passed by the Civil Court, the provisions of the Act are applicable for resumption of the lands where-ever the assigned lands are allotted to the landless poor persons are transferred. Even if there is any decree is passed by the Civil Court, the provisions of the Act are applicable for resumption of the lands where-ever the assigned lands are allotted to the landless poor persons are transferred. Under Sub Section (5) of Section 3 of the Act, if any assigned lands have been purchased prior to the commencement of the Act by the landless poor, are saved, but admittedly, in the instant case, lands were purchased during the years 2004-05. Therefore, there cannot be any protection in favour of the petitioners under Sub Section (5) of Section 3 of the Act. However, the petitioners are not the landless poor persons. 14. If there is any breach of Sub Section (1) or Sub Section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, the concerned Assessment Authority and in the instant case, the Mandal Revenue Officer is authorized to take possession of the assigned lands after evicting the persons in possession in such manner as may be prescribed. 15. In the instant case, notice has been issued to the petitioners who were in possession of the assigned lands and after considering the explanations, resumption orders have been passed under Section 4(1) of the Act. Under Section 4(3) of the Act, where any assigned land is found in possession of a person other than the original assignee or his legal heir, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved that there is a contravention of the provisions of sub section (1) of Section 3. In the instant case, there is no dispute about the possession of the petitioners over the assigned lands, as admittedly, they have purchase the lands of large extent during the years 2004-05 alone. No doubt, under Section 5 of the Act, there is a prohibition for registration of the assigned lands and merely because the particulars of the assigned lands have not been furnished as contemplated under Rule 4 of the Rules, it cannot be said that the assignees of the said lands are entitled to sell their assigned lands. When there is a prohibition of transfer of assigned lands, any acquisition of such lands even by way of registration of the sale deeds shall be deemed null and void as no registering authority shall accept the registration of any document for transfer or creation of any interest in any assigned land. When there is a prohibition of transfer of assigned lands, any acquisition of such lands even by way of registration of the sale deeds shall be deemed null and void as no registering authority shall accept the registration of any document for transfer or creation of any interest in any assigned land. Thus, there is a total prohibition to transfer the assigned lands except mortgage in favour of the State or Central Government, local authority, co-operative society, scheduled bank and also such other financial institution owned, controlled or managed by the State or Central Government as may be notified by the Government. 16. Exemption to mortgage the assigned lands is only for the benefit of the landless poor to avail the loan and pay the same, but even the said mortgagee is not entitled to sell the said land. Section 6 of the Act is only to provide a benefit in favour of the landless poor to avail loan by mortgaging the said land. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the mortgage in favour of the said authorities cannot be treated as a transfer within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act. There is a total prohibition to transfer the land except mortgage in favour of the State or Central Government or Co-operative Bank. If such lands are mortgaged, it is not open for the authorities to resume the land as the mortgage shall not be treated as a transfer. Therefore, the exemption given was only in respect of the mortgage, but even the mortgaged lands cannot be permitted to be sold as the mortgage shall not be treated as a transfer for the purpose of the Act. However, that question may not arise in the instant case and all the questions raised by the petitioners were rightly negatived by the authorities. The perusal of the resumption orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, confirmed by the Appellate Authority (RDO) and the Revisional Authority (Joint Collector) goes to show that the said lands are the assigned lands and in violation of the provisions of Sub Sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the Act, the petitioners have purchased the said lands and therefore, resumption orders have been passed in accordance with law. I do not see any infirmity or illegality to interfere with the concurrent findings of the impugned orders. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. I do not see any infirmity or illegality to interfere with the concurrent findings of the impugned orders. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.