Judgment The petitioner who claims to have purchased Ac.1.17 cents of assigned land situated in survey No.652 of Mamillapalli village in C.K.Dinne Mandal of Kadapa District from one Kanuri Venkataiah under registered sale deed dated 30.10.2004 for valid consideration, made an application dated 06.01.2010 for issue of pattadar passbook and title deed. Alleging that the respondents failed to consider his application the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not issuing the pattadar passbook and title deed in respect of the land in question, is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to ratify the registered sale deed dated 30.10.2004 in terms of Section 4 (1) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 as amended by Act No.21 of 2008 (for short, ‘Act No.21 of 2008’). I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. The material available on record shows that the petitioner’s vendor by name K.Venkataiah was assigned the land in question vide D.K.T. No.79/1696 dated 22.04.1970. The petitioner had admittedly purchased the said assigned land under sale deed dated 30.10.2004. As per Section 3 (3) of Act 9 of 1997, the said transfer shall be deemed to be null and void and therefore, the question of issuing pattadar passbook and title deed to the petitioner does not arise. However, it is contended by the petitioner that as he is a landless poor person and the assigned land has been purchased by him for valuable consideration in good faith prior to 29.01.2007, he is entitled to the benefit of Amendment Act No.21 of 2008. It is also contended that the respondents are bound to regularise the sale transaction dated 30.10.2004 in terms of Act No.21 of 2008. On a careful consideration of the relevant statutory provisions, I do not find substance in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. It is also contended that the respondents are bound to regularise the sale transaction dated 30.10.2004 in terms of Act No.21 of 2008. On a careful consideration of the relevant statutory provisions, I do not find substance in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. As per Section 4 (1) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 as amended by Act No.8 of 2007, the District Collector or any other officer not below the rank of Mandal Revenue Officer authorised by him, if satisfied that any of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 3 have been contravened in respect of any assigned land, has to take the possession of the assigned land after evicting the person in possession following the procedure prescribed and restore the assigned to the original assignee or assign to other eligible landless poor persons. However, Section 4(1) (b) has again been amended by Act No.21 of 2008 as under: “2. However, Section 4(1) (b) has again been amended by Act No.21 of 2008 as under: “2. Amendment of Section 4:- In the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, (Act 9 of 1997) in Section 4, in sub-section (1), for clause (b), the following shall be substituted, namely: “(b) (i) reassign the said resumed land, other than those lands/areas as may be notified by the Government from time to time in public interest and for public purpose, to the transferee who purchased the land in good faith and for valuable consideration on or before 29th January, 2007, subject to the condition that he/she is landless poor person, and is in occupation of the land by using the said land for agriculture or as house site, as on the date of taking possession by eviction: Provided that the reassignment in case of transferee shall be limited to only such an extent that the total holding of the reassignee including any other land held by him/her does not exceed 5.00 acres dry land or 2 ½ acres wet land; Provided further that where the transferee who has purchased the land and got reassignment of it, or his legal heir, transfers the reassigned land, the land shall be resumed for assignment to the other eligible landless poor; (i) restore the said assigned land, other than those land/areas as may be notified by the Government from time to time in public interest and for public purpose, to the original assignee, subject to the condition that he or she is landless poor person as on the date of restoration for one time; or (ii) assign to other eligible landless poor person: Provided that the restoration of land shall be limited to only such an extent that the total holding including any other land held by him/her does not exceed 5.00 acres dry land or 2 ½ acres wet land; Provided further that where the original assignee or his legal heir, after first restoration transfers the assigned land, the land shall be resumed for assignment to the other eligible landless poor; Provided also that if no eligible landless poor persons are available in the village/area, the resumed land will be utilised for public purpose. Explanation:- For the purpose of this clause “Public Interest” and “Public Purpose” shall mean and include, the Weaker Section Housing, Public Utility, Infrastructure Development, Promotion of Industries and Tourism or for any other public purpose”; It is true that as per Section 4 (1) (b) as amended by Act No.21 of 2008, after taking the possession of the assigned land it is open to the District Collector or the officer authorised, to reassign the same to the transferee who purchased the land in good faith and for valuable consideration on or before 29.01.2007, subject to the conditions specified therein. However, the said provision, in my considered opinion does not confer any legally enforceable right upon the transferee to claim regularisation of the transfer of the assigned land. It is also relevant to note that as on today no proceedings have been taken up by the competent authority under Section 4 of Act for resumption of the land in question. Thus, as on today the transfer of the assigned land under the sale deed dated 30.10.2004 in favour of the petitioner shall be deemed to be null and void. Hence, the respondents cannot said to have committed any illegality in not entertaining the petitioner’s application for grant of passbook and title deed. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ of mandamus as prayed for cannot be granted. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to claim the benefit under amended Act No. 21 of 2008 as and when the proceedings are initiated by the competent authority for resumption of the assigned land in possession of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. No costs.