Judgment : This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the order in proceedings, vide Rc.No.412/2007, dated 23.04.2007, of respondent No.3, as confirmed in Assignment Appeal No.257, dated 09.07.2010 and in Case No.R..Dis.No.5041/2010/E2, dated 15.01.2013, of respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively. I have heard Sri Challa Dhanamjaya, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments). The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of land admeasuring Acs.8-25 cents in Survey No.538 (Old Survey No.498/B1) of Pottur Village, Guntur Rural Mandal and District. She traced her title in the following manner: The land was purchased by T.Gurumurthy @ Rama Murthy, S/o Suraiah in an auction held in E.P.No.1111 of 1915 in Small Cause Case No.267 of 1915 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Guntur and the sale was confirmed on 11.01.1916. The auction purchaser-T.Gurumurthy sold the property to the father of the petitioner by name Vokkalagadda Sambaiah under registered sale deed No.1193, dated 06.03.1967. After the demise of the petitioner’s father, her brothers and sisters executed registered gift deed No.8992/81, dated 06.08.1981, in favour of the petitioner. Following the execution of the gift deed, her name was incorporated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued to her in the year 1991. The Adangals for 1404 to 1407 fasalies also mentioned the said land as patta land and not assigned land. Respondent No.3 has passed an order on 23.04.2007 resuming the land on the ground that the land in Survey No.538 admeasuring Acs.8-25 cents and also the land in Survey No.544 admeasuring Acs.2.97 cents are assigned lands and that, therefore, they are liable for resumption under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner claimed that against the said order, she has filed an appeal before respondent No.2 on 21.05.2007, which was received by respondent No.2 under acknowledgment, dated 22.05.2007; that respondent No.2 has not assigned any number to the said appeal; and that having waited for more than two years and as there was no response from respondent No.2, she has sent a fresh appeal to respondent No.2, which was numbered as Assignment Appeal No.257 of 2010. By order, dated 16.03.2007, respondent No.2 has dismissed the said appeal on the ground that the same was barred by limitation as it was filed after a lapse of three years from the date of the resumption order passed by respondent No.3. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders of respondent Nos.2 and 3, the petitioner filed a statutory revision before respondent No.1. The said Revision was dismissed by order, dated 15.01.2013. Questioning these orders, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition. Sri Challa Dhanamjaya, the learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that all the respondents have committed a serious jurisdictional error in resuming the land of the petitioner. He further contends that the above-mentioned land was not an assigned land; that the same was purchased in a Court auction by the predecessor in title of the father of the petitioner as far back as the year 1915; that there is absolutely no record to show that the above-mentioned land was an assigned land; and that, therefore, the very initiation of the proceedings under the Act is without jurisdiction. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. I have carefully perused the record apart from hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments). A perusal of the impugned order of respondent No.3 would show that in the first paragraph he has stated that “the following lands” were assigned to the landless poor persons. In the following paragraph, he has provided columns for the Serial Number, Survey Number, Extent and the Name of assignee. Under the column “Name of assignee”, no names have been indicated and the column is kept blank. Respondent No.3 has not referred to the proceedings under which the lands were assigned. Thus, it is clear from the said order of respondent No.3 that no details of assignment relating to the proceedings and the date on which the assignments were made and the persons in whose favour such assignments were made are mentioned. Since respondent No.2 has dismissed the appeal as time barred, he has not discussed the case on merits. In the revision order, dated 15.01.2013, passed by respondent No.1, he has framed the following points: “1. Whether the land in question is an assigned land or not? 2. Whether the transfer was prior to or after the commencement of the Act? 3. If the transfer is prior to the commencement of the Act? In the revision order, dated 15.01.2013, passed by respondent No.1, he has framed the following points: “1. Whether the land in question is an assigned land or not? 2. Whether the transfer was prior to or after the commencement of the Act? 3. If the transfer is prior to the commencement of the Act? Whether the purchaser was landless poor on the date of purchase, whether he purchased it in good faith for valuable consideration or not?” Nowhere in the aforesaid order, respondent No.1 has dealt with point No.1. Like respondent No.3, respondent No.1 has also failed to give details as to the proceedings by which the purported assignments were made and the persons in whose favour such assignments were made. The Act was enacted with a view to invalidate the sale of assigned lands made either before or after its commencement. Section 2(1) of the Act defined “assigned land” as under: “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, and the word “assigned” shall be construed accordingly.” (Emphasis is mine) Section 3 of the Act prohibits transfer of assigned lands and introduced a deeming provision that any transfer or acquisition made in contravention of the provisions of subsection (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act shall be deemed to be null and void. However, sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act has carved out an exception in favour of the landless poor persons purchasing the assigned land in good faith and for valuable consideration from the original assignee or his transferee prior to the commencement of the Act. Section 4 of the Act envisages consequences of breach of provisions of Section 3 and the competent authority is empowered under the said provision to initiate proceedings for resumption of the land. From the definition of the assigned land, it is evident that it is not every assigned land which falls under the provisions of the Act. Section 4 of the Act envisages consequences of breach of provisions of Section 3 and the competent authority is empowered under the said provision to initiate proceedings for resumption of the land. From the definition of the assigned land, it is evident that it is not every assigned land which falls under the provisions of the Act. To attract the provisions of the Act, the land must be an assigned land and such an assignment must have been made subject to the condition of non-alienation or transfer to landless poor persons under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to land ceilings. Certain exceptions in favour of Central Government or State Government or any local authority or Co-Operative Societies have been made, reference to which is not necessary for the purpose of this case. A proceeding under the provisions of the Act for cancellation of the assignment and resumption of the land can be initiated only if the above-mentioned four requirements exist, namely, that the land must be an assigned land; that the assignment contains a clause prohibiting alienation; that the land must have been assigned or allotted to a landless poor person from out of the ceiling surplus land; and that such land must have been alienated. Unless these requirements are satisfied, the competent authority cannot exercise the jurisdiction. In my opinion, the initial burden lies on the competent authority under Section 4 of the Act to prove that the land was transferred in violation of the conditions of assignment/allotment. Unless this burden is discharged based on the relevant material, the order of resumption cannot be sustained in law. In the instant case, both respondent Nos.1 and 3 have skirted the issue as to whether the land in question is an assigned land. As noted hereinbefore, respondent No.3 has shown dots under the column “Name of assignee”. Respondent No.1 having framed the point, has failed to discuss and render a finding thereon. Therefore, the respondents have failed to discharge their initial burden in proving that the land in question is an assigned land and that the same was sold in violation of the conditions of assignment/allotment. Hence, the very initiation of the proceedings under the Act is without jurisdiction. The orders of the respondents cannot, therefore, be sustained in law and they are, accordingly, quashed. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. Hence, the very initiation of the proceedings under the Act is without jurisdiction. The orders of the respondents cannot, therefore, be sustained in law and they are, accordingly, quashed. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.18731 of 2013 is disposed of as infructuous.