Judgment : The petitioners purchased a plot of 750 sq.yards in Sy.No.101/17 of Nagole Revenue Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, through sale deed dated 31-03-2010. They have traced the origin of title to the stage of a sale deed dated 19-10-1981, which, in turn was followed by two more sale deeds dated 16-05-1985 and 08-08-1990. Their vendor filed Writ Petition No.2966 of 2010, complaining that the respondents are trying to interfere with his possession. The writ petition was disposed of on 11-02-2010, directing that the respondents shall not interfere or otherwise dispossess the petitioner therein from the land, except by initiating the proceedings in accordance with law. The petitioners state that after the W.P.No.2966 of 2010 was disposed of, the Tahsildar, Uppal Mandal, 3rd respondent herein, issued a notice dated 29-05-2010 to their vendor, under Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act 7 of 77), read with Rule 3 of the Rules, framed thereunder, requiring him to explain as to why the plot of 750 sq.yards in Sy.No.101/17 of Nagole Village, be not resumed. The vendor of the petitioners submitted a detailed representation on 24-06-2010, denying the allegation that the plot is part of any assigned land. It is stated that no orders have been passed thereon. Even while those proceedings are pending, the 3rd respondent issued a notice dated 10-05-2012 to the petitioners, under Section 7 of the A.P Land Encroachment Act, 1905. However, the plot with the same description, was shown, to be part of land, in Sy.Nos.101/19 & 120 of Nagole Village. The petitioners submitted a detailed explanation on 05-06-2012. Taking the same into account, the 3rd respondent passed an order dated 16-07-2012, directing their eviction. The said order is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioners contend that the 3rd respondent is not clear as to whether he is passing orders, under the Act 7/77, or the A.P. Land Encroachment Act. They submit that on the one hand, the property was shown as part of land, in Sy.No.101/17, in the proceedings dated 29-05-2010, whereas in the impugned notice, dated 16-07-2012, it is shown as part of Sy.Nos.101/19 & 20 of Nagole Village. The 3rd respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit. He submits that the entire extent in Sy.No.101 is a Government land, and up to sub-divisions 18, the bits of that land were assigned to various persons. The 3rd respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit. He submits that the entire extent in Sy.No.101 is a Government land, and up to sub-divisions 18, the bits of that land were assigned to various persons. According to him, the land in Sy.Nos.101/19 and 20 of Nagole Village continued to be owned by the Government. It is stated that on noticing encroachment of the land, by the petitioners, proceedings were initiated under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act and the impugned order was passed, after considering the reply submitted by them. He submits that the petitioners have no title or right over the land. Heard Sri P. Sriharsha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioners purchased the plot of 750 sq.yards in Sy.No.101/17 of Nagole Revenue Village, Uppal Mandal, in the recent past, through sale deed dated 31-03-2010. It was shown to be part of Sy.No.101/17. Even according to the 3rd respondent, the land in Sy.No.101/17 was assigned, long back. It was on that basis, that he initiated proceedings under the Act 7/77, against the vendor of the petitioners. An explanation was submitted thereto. No orders are passed by the 3rd respondent, in the said proceedings. The petitioners were issued a notice under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act in respect of the very property, but showing it as part of Sy.Nos.101/19 and 20 of Nagole Village. The petitioners filed a detailed representation, raising several objections. Not satisfied with the explanation, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order. In the normal course, a person, who feels aggrieved by an order passed under Section 3 of the Act 7/77, has to avail the remedy of appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The order impugned in this writ petition, however, presents a peculiar situation. If an assignee of the land from the Government has alienated the same in contravention of the provisions of Act 7/77, proceedings have to be initiated, both against the assignee and the transferee. Though the transfer, and in some cases, assignment also, are liable to be cancelled on account of such violation, neither the assignee nor the transferee can be branded as encroachers. The circumstances under which, the provisions of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act can be invoked are totally different. Though the transfer, and in some cases, assignment also, are liable to be cancelled on account of such violation, neither the assignee nor the transferee can be branded as encroachers. The circumstances under which, the provisions of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act can be invoked are totally different. It is only when a person is found to be in possession of Government land, without any legal basis, that he would be liable to be evicted by initiating proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act. Invocation of the provisions of both the enactments, referred to above, in respect of one and the same property, is just impermissible. A rare situation, when both the provisions can be invoked, is, when an assignee or his transferee continued to be in possession of the property, even after the order of resumption, passed under Act 7/77, has become final. In such cases, the issuance of notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act cannot be said to be wholly illegal. It has already been mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, that the proceedings initiated in respect of the land in question, under Act 7/77 are still pending, and no order of resumption was passed, yet. The 3rd respondent has dealt with the provisions of both the enactments, in the impugned order. In one and the same breath, he treated that the petitioners are unauthorized encroachers over the land, and has also made an observation to the effect that any transferee of a land, in contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of the Act 7/77 is liable to be evicted. The whole exercise is untenable, albeit the 3rd respondent happens to be the authority, to initiate proceedings under both the enactments. A combined exercise of such powers becomes questionable. It is prone to shake the very jurisdiction, to initiate such proceeding. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. This order, however, shall not preclude the respondents from initiating proceedings, in accordance with law. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.