Judgment : Both these writ petitions are filed challenging the proceedings, dated 02.11.2011. Hence, they are being disposed of by a common order. For the sake convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in W.P.No.1621 of 2012. The petitioner was assigned Acs.3.20 gts. of land in Survey No.300/26 of Kongarakalan Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The land was needed for public purpose namely establishment of an Industrial Park by APIIC. Therefore, it was resumed to the Government, with the obligation to pay exgratia to the assignee. The petitioner states that his father owned agricultural land admeasuring Acs.12.20 gts. in Survey Nos.231 and 232 of the said village and himself and his brother, late D.Narsimha -the husband of the 2nd respondent got equal shares. According to him, mistake occurred in the proceedings of mutation and in the process his signatures were taken by his brother on some papers. According to him, the land in Survey No.300/26, which was assigned to him, was shown as having fallen to the share of the husband of the 2nd respondent. Earlier, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.16302 of 2011, when an attempt was being made to pay exgratia for the land, to the 2nd respondent. The writ petition was dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies by filing a civil suit. It is stated that the petitioner filed O.S.No.880 of 2011, and that it is pending in the Court of the Special Judge for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. An order of status quo as regards payment of exgratia was passed therein. The 1st respondent issued notice, dated 12.09.2011, to the petitioner as well as to the 2nd respondent under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, ‘the Act’), alleging that the petitioner transferred the land in favour of the 2nd respondent in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Thereafter, he passed the impugned order, dated 02.11.2011, directing resumption of the land, observing that no explanation was received in response to the show cause notice. The petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent challenge the said notice. According to the petitioner, it was only a family arrangement that resulted in showing the assigned land in the name of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner claims rights as assignee. The petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent challenge the said notice. According to the petitioner, it was only a family arrangement that resulted in showing the assigned land in the name of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner claims rights as assignee. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. There is no dispute that the land in question was assigned to the petitioner and that the same has been resumed to the Government, for a public purpose. The dispute arose between the petitioner, on the one hand, and the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, as regards the entitlement to receive exgratia. As a matter of fact, the authority, who resumed the land, was about to pay exgratia to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner initially approached this Court to assert his rights to receive exgratia and on dismissal of the writ petition, he filed a suit. The proceedings under the Act were issued at this juncture. The Act prohibits alienation of assigned land in favour of a 3rd party. It is not uncommon that when land is assigned in favour of one of the members of the joint family, rights are created in favour of other members also who are not assignees in a family arrangement or partition. Such an arrangement cannot be equated to transfer the land, which is prohibited under the Act. It is only when a sale for consideration is effected by an assignee in favour of a 3rd party, that the provisions of the Act can be said to have been violated. There does not exist any flow of consideration from one party to another whenever an arrangement takes place within the family. It is mostly for convenience and better enjoyment of land that family arrangements are made. No one can be said to have gained or lost anything in such arrangements. Further, in the instant case, the petitioner is asserting that he never parted with the land assigned to him. Under these circumstances, the very invocation of the provisions of the Act is untenable. Hence, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside. The manner in which exgratia for the land assigned to the petitioners would depend upon the outcome of O.S.No.880 of 2011. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall stand disposed of.