Judgment : As the subject matter of both these Writ Petitions is common, they are heard and being disposed of together by this Common Judgment. The background facts: The property in dispute is Ac.10-00 in Sy.No.36 of Gopanpalli village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as “the subject land”). The subject land was a Government land. It was assigned to one Babu Rao Joshi in the year 1961. His name was incorporated in the revenue record (Faisal Patti) for the year 1961-62. Supplementary Sethwar vide File No.G1/1211/1963, dated 11-3-1964 was issued by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records. The name of Babu Rao Joshi was mutated in all the revenue records, such as Vasool Baqui, Pahani etc. Babu Rao Joshi died in the year 1967. The name of his son, Arun Kumar Joshi, was mutated in the revenue records in the year 1968. Arun Kumar Joshi sold the subject land through registered sale deed dated 5-6-1980 to one Shaik Ashwak Ahmed s/o. Shaik Umar. The said Shaik Ashwak Ahmed has in turn sold the subject land in favour of one V. Gourinath, the father of V. Srinivas, the petitioner in W.P.No.21352/2012. M. Lakshmikanthaiah, the petitioner in W.P.No.20676/2012, claimed that V. Gourinath has sold the subject land to him through a General Power of Attorney-cum-Agreement of sale stated to have been executed on 18-6-1995 and possession was delivered to him. This fact is, however, seriously disputed by V. Srinivas. It is the pleaded case of V. Srinivas that his father V. Gourinath died on 23-12-1988 and that during his life time he has executed a Will bequeathing the subject land to him. He has averred that as his father died as far back 23-12-1988, the case of M. Lakshmikanthaiah that his father executed an unregistered Power of Attorney-cum-Agreement of sale on 18-6-1995 is highly improbable and that the said document was created for the purpose of making a false claim. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar (Deputy Collector), Serilingampally-respnodent No.4 in both these Writ Petitions, initiated proceedings under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short "the Act") for resumption of the subject land on the directions given by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District-respondent No.2. Be that as it may, the Tahsildar (Deputy Collector), Serilingampally-respnodent No.4 in both these Writ Petitions, initiated proceedings under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short "the Act") for resumption of the subject land on the directions given by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District-respondent No.2. Notice dated 15-12-2003 in Form-I was allegedly sent to the first purchaser of the subject land-Shaik Ashwak Ahmed to show cause as to why he should not be summarily evicted from the subject land and any crop or product raised or building or other constructions erected or anything deposited therein should not be forfeited. The said notice has returned unserved with the endorsement “No such named person in this house”. Respondent No.4 allegedly got the notice published on the land and also in the village on 29-12-2003. Respondent No.4 has passed the resumption order in proceedings No.B/2545/2003, dated 16-1-2004, wherein he has stated that inspite of publication of the notice, the purchaser has neither appeared in person nor filed any representation in writing. Respondent No.4 held that the subject land assigned to Babu Rao Joshi was sold by his son through sale deed dated 5-6-1980 in favour of Shaik Shafiq Ahmed in violation of Section 3(2) of the Act and therefore the same is resumed. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, M. Lakshmikanthaiah filed an appeal before respondent No.3. The said appeal was dismissed vide order No.D/1515/2007, dated 17-10-2007. M. Lakshmikanthaiah filed a revision petition under Section 4-B of the Act before respondent No.2. In the said revision petition he has pleaded, as he also did before the appellate authority, that the subject land was assigned to Babu Rao Joshi under the Political Sufferers’ quota vide file No.A6/5456/1961; that as per G.O.Ms.No.1745, Revenue Department, dated 28-8-1959, Political Sufferers have been permitted to sell away the lands assigned to them without being subjected to any conditions. It was therefore the pleaded case of M. Lakshmikanthaiah that as all the sale transactions relating to the subject land have taken place during the subsistence of G.O.Ms.No.1745, dated 28-8-1959, they were not hit by the provisions of the Act and that therefore proceedings dated 16-1-2004 of respondent No.4 resuming the subject land was illegal and unsustainable. It was therefore the pleaded case of M. Lakshmikanthaiah that as all the sale transactions relating to the subject land have taken place during the subsistence of G.O.Ms.No.1745, dated 28-8-1959, they were not hit by the provisions of the Act and that therefore proceedings dated 16-1-2004 of respondent No.4 resuming the subject land was illegal and unsustainable. The above noted pleas of M. Lakshmikanthaiah were accepted by respondent No.2 vide his proceedings dated 24-11-2008, the revision petition was allowed and the orders of the Primary and the Appellate authorities were set-aside. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of respondent No.2, the A.P. Non-Gazetted Officers (Gachibowly) Mutually Aided Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Hyderabad (for short “the Society”)-respondent No.5, to whom the subject land was handed over following the resumption order passed by respondent No.4, filed a revision petition before respondent No.1 on 5-5-2009. The Society has pleaded that it was registered under the A.P. Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995; that it comprises all the Non-Gazetted Officers as its members and that in the year 2004, that the State Government has given advance possession of Ac.142-15 gts. of land in Sy.No.36 and Ac.51-24 gts. in Sy.No.37 and that it was put in possession of the said lands. The Society has further pleaded that it has spent considerable amount of money and labour for making the lands fit for house sites and that when M. Lakshmikanthaiah started interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the subject land claiming that he has purchased the same under an Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney from V. Gourinath, the Society came to know through him that he has succeeded before respondent No.2 in the revision petition filed by him. After giving notices to the revision petitioner/the Society and M. Lakshmikanthaiah, respondent No.1 has allowed the revision petition vide G.O.Ms.No.421, Revenue (Assignment-V) Department, dated 3-7-2012. The grounds on which the said revision petition was allowed by respondent No.1 were recorded in para-24 of G.O.Ms.No.421. For better appreciation, the said para is reproduced below: (1) The revenue records have not recorded anywhere that this assignment pertains to Political Sufferer category. (2) There are no records/registers in the Tahsildar’s office to establish that this assignment was made in favour of political sufferer. For better appreciation, the said para is reproduced below: (1) The revenue records have not recorded anywhere that this assignment pertains to Political Sufferer category. (2) There are no records/registers in the Tahsildar’s office to establish that this assignment was made in favour of political sufferer. (3) Even the respondent No.4 (Sri Lakshmi Kanthaiah) has failed to produce the original land assignment records to prove the claim on behalf of the political sufferer. (4) No conclusive proof has been provided that Sri Babu Rao Joshi is a freedom fighter/political sufferer and he has got the assignment under this category. Assailing G.O.Ms.No.421, dated 3-7-2012, M. Lakshmikanthaiah filed W.P.No.20676/2012. V. Srinivas s/o. V. Gourinath has also questioned the said G.O. by filing W.P.No.21352/2012. I have heard Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri S.V.S. Chowdhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.20676/2012 and respondent No.6 in W.P.No.21352/2012, Sri D.V. Sitharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri A. Mahadeva, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.21352/2012, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel and Sri R.N. Hemendranath Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent No.5/Society, in both the Writ Petitions. The submissions: Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, made the following submissions: 1. Respondent No.4 has committed a serious jurisdictional error in initiating proceedings under the provisions of the Act without being satisfied that the subject land falls within the definition of “assigned land” under Section 2(1) of the Act, as no assignment deed was available on file, in the absence of which, he ought not to have presumed that the assignment contained a condition of non-alienation. 2. Respondent No.1 has seriously erred in disputing the status of Babu Rao Joshi as a Political Sufferer and the assignment made in his favour in his capacity as a Political Sufferer despite the material produced before it, such as, imprisonment certificate No.6570, dated 8-8-1960, of the original assignee issued by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Aurangabad, and the endorsement made in the pahani for the year 1963-64 describing Babu Rao Joshi as a Political Sufferer and that the assignment was made to him under the said quota. Sri D.V. Sitharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing in W.P.No.21352/2012, advanced the following submissions: 1. Sri D.V. Sitharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing in W.P.No.21352/2012, advanced the following submissions: 1. That the order of the Primary Authority i.e., respondent No.4, is vitiated for the reason that though V. Gourinath has purchased the subject land under registered sale deed dated 12-7-1984 from Shaik Shafiq Ahmed, a notice in Form-I was purported to have been issued to the vendor Shaik Shafiq Ahmed instead of such notice being issued to V. Srinivas s/o. V. Gourinath. 2. That respondent No.1 has committed a serious illegality in overlooking the material available before it to show that the land was assigned to Babu Rao Joshi under the Political Sufferers quota and also ignoring the fact that the very proceedings initiated by respondent No.4 under the Act nearly 35 years after the first sale of the subject land was made, was unsustainable in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court in a catena of decisions. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the Judgments of this Court in Madamaneni Chinnaswamy Vs. Joint Collector, Chittoor ( 2009(1) ALT 424 ), Dasari Narayana Rao Vs. Deputy Collector & Mandal Revenue Officer (2010(4) ALD 655) and Akkem Anjaiah Vs. Deputy Collector & Tahsildar ( 2011(5) ALT 420 ). While opposing the above submissions, Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel and Sri R.N. Hemendranath Reddy, learned Counsel, appearing for respondent No.5, made the following submissions: 1. An order can be challenged only by a right person before a right forum and that an agreement holder under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, has no interest in the property except to seek specific performance and that therefore the petitioner has no locus standi. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the Judgments in Rafique Bibi (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Sayed Waliddin (dead) byL.Rs. ( 2004(1) SCC 287 ) and Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya Vs. Anil Panjwani ( 2003(7) SCC 350 ). 2. From the year 1995 till the date, M. Lakshmikanthaiah has not enforced his purported agreement of sale and therefore, he cannot question the resumption order. 3. V. Srinivas, the petitioner in W.P.No.21352/2012 has not questioned the resumption order and therefore he has no locus to question G.O.Ms.No.421 issued by respondent No.1. 4. Anil Panjwani ( 2003(7) SCC 350 ). 2. From the year 1995 till the date, M. Lakshmikanthaiah has not enforced his purported agreement of sale and therefore, he cannot question the resumption order. 3. V. Srinivas, the petitioner in W.P.No.21352/2012 has not questioned the resumption order and therefore he has no locus to question G.O.Ms.No.421 issued by respondent No.1. 4. In the absence of any evidence that Babu Rao Joshi was a Political Sufferer and that assignment of the subject land was made to him in that capacity, no exception can be taken to the impugned G.O. and that at any rate, as the order of respondent No.2 itself was an unreasoned one, the impugned G.O. cannot be set aside to revive another illegal order. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the Judgments in Gadde Venkateswara Rao Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh ( AIR 1966 S.C. 828 ) and Aligarh Muslim University Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan ( AIR 2000 S.C. 2783 ). 5. The Act operates between the assignee of the land and its first purchaser and that it does not recognise the subsequent purchasers and therefore, respondent No.4 has correctly issued notice only to the first purchaser. 6. Alternatively, if the order of respondent No.1 cannot be sustained, as the order of respondent No.2 is also equally unsustainable, both the said orders are liable to be set aside and the case remanded to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration. Analysis: Before considering the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, it is necessary to consider the legal provisions and the executive instructions governing the subject matter. The Act has been made with a view to prohibit transfer of assigned lands. Section 2(1) of the Act defines “assigned land” as 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. Section 3(1) of the Act prohibits transfer of assigned land and declares that such transfer shall never be deemed to have taken place and no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer. Section 3(1) of the Act prohibits transfer of assigned land and declares that such transfer shall never be deemed to have taken place and no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer. Sub-section (5) of Section 3, however, provided an exception to the general rule in favour of the landless poor persons who purchased assigned lands in good faith and for valuable consideration from the original assignees or his transferees prior to the commencement of the Act and are in possession of such lands for the purposes of cultivation or house sites on the date of such commencement. Section 4 of the Act empowers the District Collector or any other officer not below the rank of a Mandal Revenue Officer to take possession of the assigned land after evicting the person in possession and restore the assigned land to its original assignee or his legal heir if the transfer was made for the first time and shall resume the same to the Government in case of subsequent transfer. Section 2(3) of the Act defined “landless poor person” as a person who owns an extent of land not more than 1.011715 hectares (two and half acres) of wet land or 2.023430 hectares (five acres) of dry land and who has no other means of livelihood. Long time back, the State Government has evolved a policy providing for assignment of lands to various categories of persons such as landless poor persons, freedom fighters, political sufferers, ex-servicemen, sivai jamadars etc. This policy is revised from time to time and the orders issued in this regard are codified by the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue (BSO). Clause (iv) of para-3 of Order 15 of the BSO defined “political sufferers” as persons who had gone to jail for a period of six months in connection with the Indian Independence as a result of taking part in the following movements inaugurated by the Indian National Congress or under its sanction: 1. Non-Co-operative Movement, 1921. 2. Nagpur Flag Satyagraha. 3. Saimon Commission Boycot 1928-29. 4. Salt Satyagraha 1930. 5. Civil Disobedience Movement 1932. 6. Individual Disobedience Movement 1932. 7. Individual Disobedience Movement 1940-41. 8. Quit India Movement of 1942. 9. Hyderabad Congress Movement started for integration of Hyderabad State with the Union Government leading to police action of September 1948. Non-Co-operative Movement, 1921. 2. Nagpur Flag Satyagraha. 3. Saimon Commission Boycot 1928-29. 4. Salt Satyagraha 1930. 5. Civil Disobedience Movement 1932. 6. Individual Disobedience Movement 1932. 7. Individual Disobedience Movement 1940-41. 8. Quit India Movement of 1942. 9. Hyderabad Congress Movement started for integration of Hyderabad State with the Union Government leading to police action of September 1948. The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1745, dated 28-8-1959 by which it has deleted one of the significant conditions of assignment to Political Sufferers, namely, that a Political Sufferer shall not alienate the land assigned to him for a period of ten years. Para-2 of the said G.O. further made it clear that Political Sufferers may be permitted to sell away the lands assigned to them without imposing any conditions. For this purpose, the Board of Revenue was requested to submit proposals for approval by the Government necessary amendments to the D-Form pattas to be issued to Political Sufferers. From the analysis of the relevant provisions of the Act and the executive instructions referred to the above, it emerges that, to fall within the definition of Section 2(1) of the Act, the deed of assignment of land shall contain the condition of non-alienability. In respect of the assignments made to Political Sufferers, the restriction that they shall not sell the land for a period of ten years incorporated in the beginning was subsequently deleted with effect from 28-8-1959 with the issue of G.O.Ms.No.1745 and therefore the assignments made to Political Sufferers fall outside the scope of the definition of “assigned land” under Section 2(1) of the Act. With the above position in mind, the submissions of the learned Counsel need to be considered. Whether Babu Rao Joshi was a Political Sufferer? : It is pertinent to note that this issue did not crop up before respondent No.4. The obvious reason for this is that no notices were issued either to V. Srinivas, the legal heir of V. Gourinath-the purchaser from Shaik Shafat Ahmed nor to M. Lakshmikanthaiah, who allegedly purchased the subject land from V. Gourinath through General Power of Attorney-cum-Agreement of sale. Shaik Shafiq Ahmed, to whom notice appeared to have been given, failed to participate in the proceedings before respondent No.4, evidently for the reason that he has lost interest in the property. Shaik Shafiq Ahmed, to whom notice appeared to have been given, failed to participate in the proceedings before respondent No.4, evidently for the reason that he has lost interest in the property. As a result, respondent No.4 has not examined this aspect and proceeded on the assumption that the subject land was sold in violation of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. In the appeal filed by M. Lakshmikanthaiah, this aspect was raised in detail. It was specifically pleaded by M. Lakshmikanthaiah that Babu Rao Joshi was a Political Sufferer and assignment of the subject land was made under Political Sufferers quota vide file No.A6/5456/61. It was further pleaded that as the land assigned to Political Sufferers could be alienated as per the extant Government orders, the provisions of the Act were not contravened. To substantiate his plea that Babu Rao Joshi was a Political Sufferer, M. Lakshmikanthaiah filed a copy of the Jail Certificate No.6770, dated 8-8-1960, of the original assignee issued by the Superintendent of Aurangabad Central Prison. Though respondent No.3 has referred to the said certificate, in the light of the plea putforth by M. Lakshmikanthaiah, the appellant before him, he has failed to deal with the said plea. Respondent No.3 proceeded on the premise that by the alienation of the assigned land, the provisions of the Act were contravened and therefore the sale deeds were void. Respondent No.2, however, in the order passed by him in the Revision Petition filed by M. Lakshmikanthaiah, after recording the detailed averments raised on the status of Babu Rao Joshi as a Political Sufferer, considered the above mentioned Certificate, certifying that Babu Rao Joshi underwent imprisonment under the order of the First Class Magistrate, Hyderabad, passed on 3-12-1356 Fasli under Section 530 of the Hyderabad Criminal Procedure Code. From this evidence, respondent No.2 has concluded that Babu Rao Joshi was a Freedom Fighter. Respondent No.2 has also relied upon the Faisal Patti for the year 1961-62 whereunder sanction of Laoni Izafa under the order of the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluq, issued in File No.A6/5456/61 was recorded and also the original File D.Dis.No.A1/1590/68 of the then Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluq, transferring the land to Arun Kumar s/o. Babu Rao Joshi, Kum. Kamala Bai, d/o. Babu Rao Joshi and Shoba Bai w/o. Babu Rao Joshi, on 16-2-1968. Kamala Bai, d/o. Babu Rao Joshi and Shoba Bai w/o. Babu Rao Joshi, on 16-2-1968. Respondent No.2 has then referred to the G.O.Ms.No.1745, Revenue Department, dated 28-8-1959, under which the lands assigned in favour of Freedom Fighters/Political Sufferers were made alienable without any conditions. Respondent No.2 has considered the purported General Power of Attorney stated to have been executed by V. Gourinath in favour of M. Lakshmikanthaiah and concluded that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not appreciated these relevant facts and accordingly set-aside the orders passed by them on the premise that the subject land was assigned to Babu Rao Joshi in his capacity as a Political Sufferer and that the assignments made to Political Sufferers are exempted from any conditions. Before this Court, besides filing a copy of certificate No.6770, dated 8-8-1960, issued by the Superintendent of Aurangabad Central Prison, which was filed before respondent Nos.1 to 3, the petitioners have also filed relevant extracts of the book published by the State Committee for the Compilation of the History of the Freedom Struggle in Andhra Pradesh. The extract of page-386 of the said book mentioned the name of Babu Rao Joshi. It is relevant to reproduce the portion of the publication referring to Babu Rao Joshi, herein below: Babu Rao Joshi: b. 1929 at Kandhar, Nanded District, Maharashtra; Resident of Hyderabad; s. of Sambadev; Hindi Bhushan; Worked in the Maharashtra Parishad, Hyderabad city branch and the Central office of the Hyderabad State Congress at Hyderabad; Was arrested during a police raid on the Central office on 20-9-1947 during the Join Indian Union Movement; Convicted to one year’s S.I.; Suffered imprisonment from 21-9-1947 to 7-11-1947 in the Secunderabad and Hyderabad Jails and subsequently in the Central Jail, Aurangabad. The contents of the above reproduced publication correlate with the Certificate issued by the Superintendent of Aurangabad Central Prison, referred to the above. However, Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel, has pointed out the discrepancy in the father’s name between the Certificate issued by the Superintendent of Aurangabad Central Prison and that mentioned in the above mentioned publication. True, it is, the father’s name of Babu Rao Joshi was mentioned as Mahadev in the Certificate 8-8-1960 issued by the Superintendent of Aurangabad Central Prison, while the same was mentioned as Sambadev in the above mentioned publication. True, it is, the father’s name of Babu Rao Joshi was mentioned as Mahadev in the Certificate 8-8-1960 issued by the Superintendent of Aurangabad Central Prison, while the same was mentioned as Sambadev in the above mentioned publication. In my opinion, this discrepancy is not of much significance as it is not the pleaded case of the respondents that there are two persons with the same name with different father’s names. The mis-description of the name of the father of Babu Rao Joshi in either of the two documents is obviously an inadvertent mistake in the absence of any dispute over the identity of Babu Rao Joshi and any rival claim by another person with the same name. From these facts, I have no hesitation to conclude that Babu Rao Joshi to whom the subject land was assigned was a Political Sufferer. Whether Babu Rao Joshi was assigned the subject land in his capacity as a Political Sufferer?: In this case, as in many cases where disputes arising out of cancellation of assignments are coming up before this Court, the original file pertaining to grant of assignment to Babu Rao Joshi is stated to be unavailable. However, interestingly, the Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal-respondent No.4, had himself stated in the counter affidavit that the land in question which forms part of Ac.460.07 gts. in Sy.No.36 of Gopanpalli village is classified as “Chinna Kancha Sarkari” (Government land) and that during the year 1961, an extent of Ac.10-00 of dry land in Sy.No.36/20 was assigned to Babu Rao Joshi who was a “Political Sufferer”. The counter affidavit has given reference to the file number as A6/5456/1961 of the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluq. Respondent No.4 has also referred to the Faisal Patti for the year 1961-62 wherein the name of Babu Rao Joshi was entered and also the Supplementary Sethwar vide file No.G/1/1211/1963, dated 11-3-1964. Sri Vedula Venkataramana, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the purported admission by respondent No.4 of the status of Babu Rao Joshi as a Political Sufferer has no relevance when this Court is exercising certiorari jurisdiction for examining the legality or otherwise of the decisions of the executive taken in exercise of its quasi judicial power. Sri Vedula Venkataramana, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the purported admission by respondent No.4 of the status of Babu Rao Joshi as a Political Sufferer has no relevance when this Court is exercising certiorari jurisdiction for examining the legality or otherwise of the decisions of the executive taken in exercise of its quasi judicial power. Indeed, it is true, the mere concession made by respondent No.4, unsupported by the record, does not confirm the status of Babu Rao Joshi as a Political Sufferer or the assignment was made to him in his capacity as a Political Sufferer. In the absence of the file relating to the grant of assignment in dispute, this Court has to examine whether there exists any material from which it can be reasonably presumed that the assignment was made in favour of Babu Rao Joshi in his capacity as a Political Sufferer. On the direction given by this Court, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) has placed before the Court copies of pahanies for the years 1961-62 and 1962-63 and Faisal Patti for the years 1961-62 and 1963-64. In the pahani for the year 1961-62, the land in Sy.No.36-A is shown as belonging to the Government described as “Poramboke”. The names of two individuals were mentioned in column Nos.31 and 33 as occupying the land. In the Faisal Patti for the same year, the name of Babu Rao Joshi is mentioned in column No.6 and File No.A6/5456/1961 is mentioned in column No.9. From this, it appears that the assignment in favour of Babu Rao Joshi was made in the year 1961 and his name was not mutated in the pahani for that year. However, the pahani for the year 1962-63 shows that the assignment made to Babu Rao Joshi was given effect to by entering his name in column No.11 and describing him as “Pattadar” in column No.12. The Faisal Patti for the year 1963-64 is very significant in this regard. It refers to the name of Babu Rao Joshi and contains the following note : “Supplementary Sethwar has been received from the Collector (Land Records) vide letter No.L.Dis/11056/62 dated 8-x-1963 to the extent of S.No.36 which was a poramboke land. The total area of the above S.No. is 379.04 Acs. Out of this area, an extent of 20-00 Acs. It refers to the name of Babu Rao Joshi and contains the following note : “Supplementary Sethwar has been received from the Collector (Land Records) vide letter No.L.Dis/11056/62 dated 8-x-1963 to the extent of S.No.36 which was a poramboke land. The total area of the above S.No. is 379.04 Acs. Out of this area, an extent of 20-00 Acs. of land have been made patta to Sri Venkatadri and Babu Rao Joshi (Political Sufferers as informed by Patwari). Hence, Jamina (illegible) Sethwar is issued and the Tahsil office has made entry in the Faisal Patti”. The authenticity of the above reproduced endorsement which was made at least three decades prior to arising of the disputes cannot be doubted and rightly the same is not disputed by any of the learned Counsel. This contemporaneous revenue record, thus, clinchingly establishes that the assignment of the subject land was made in favour of Babu Rao Joshi in his capacity as a Political Sufferer. Besides the above discussed documentary evidence, there is another circumstance which would fortify the conclusion of this Court on this aspect. The BSO which has codified the various Government orders and the Executive instructions governing various aspects relating to the lands in the State of Andhra Pradesh, including assignments, are relevant in this context. Para-3 of BSO-15 specified the following categories of persons eligible for assignment : “Only landless and poor persons who directly engage themselves in cultivation, including Harijans, Ex-Toddy Tappers, backward communities and weavers shall be eligible for assignment. Ex-Servicemen, Serving Soldiers (Jawans), Political Sufferers and Co-operative Societies consisting of entirely landless poor persons shall also be eligible for assignment according to the special procedure prescribed in para 11.” Para-5 thereof prescribed the maximum extent of land that may be assigned to a single individual as 2½ acres wet or 5 acres dry. However, under clause v(a) of sub-para-3 of para-11 of BSO-15, each Political Sufferer shall be assigned Ac.5-00 of wet or its equivalent i.e., Ac.10-00 of dry land (Ac.15-00 in the Ceded Districts and in the Taluqs of Madanapalli and Vayalpad in Chittoor District) irrespective of the extent of movable or immovable properties owned by them. If Babu Rao Joshi was not treated as a Political Sufferer, there was absolutely no possibility of assignment of land in excess of Ac.5-00 dry in his favour. If Babu Rao Joshi was not treated as a Political Sufferer, there was absolutely no possibility of assignment of land in excess of Ac.5-00 dry in his favour. The fact that Babu Rao Joshi was assigned Ac.10-00 of dry land would prove without any cavil of doubt that the assignment was made to him in his capacity as a Political Sufferer. Thus, from the record to the extent it is available and the policy of the Government that was in force at the time of assignment of the land in favour of Babu Rao Joshi, the irresistible conclusion that emerges is that Babu Rao Joshi was assigned Ac.10-00 of dry land in his capacity as a Political Sufferer. Whether the petitioners have locus standi to question the resumption order dated 16-1-2004 passed by respondent No.4?: The objection of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 on the aspect of locus standi qua the petitioners is based on different reasons. As regards M. Lakshmikanthaiah, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the purported agreement of sale dated 18-6-1995 was never enforced by him either against V. Gourinath or V. Srinivas, his son, and that a mere agreement of sale does not by itself create any right or interest in the property. Further, when V. Srinivas is seriously disputing the genuineness of the General Power of Attorney-cum-Agreement of sale on the plea that his father died as far back as 23-12-1988 and therefore there was no possibility of his father executing the General Power of Attorney-cum-agreement of sale on 18-6-1995, M. Lakshmikanthaiah has no right whatsoever to question the resumption order. With regard to V. Srinivas, his locus standi to file the Writ Petition is disputed on the ground that he has failed to question the resumption order passed by respondent No.4. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to clarify that this Court does not intend to adjudicate on the competing claims of M. Lakshmikanthaiah and V. Srinivas. It is for the said parties to settle their disputes before the competent Court of law in the event the resumption order of respondent No.4 which is questioned in these Writ Petitions is set-aside. Therefore, at this stage, the allegations made by V. Srinivas in respect of the genuineness or otherwise of the General Power of Attorney-cum-Agreement of sale cannot be considered. Therefore, at this stage, the allegations made by V. Srinivas in respect of the genuineness or otherwise of the General Power of Attorney-cum-Agreement of sale cannot be considered. Indeed, neither respondent No.3 nor respondent No.1 had non-suited M. Lakshmikanthaiah on the ground that he lacks locus standi. On the contrary, respondent No.2 has allowed the Revision Petition filed by M. Lakshmikanthaiah and directed restoration of the subject land to him. While it is true, under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a contract for sale does not by itself create any interest or charge over the property, Section 53-A of the said Act, subject to the provisions contained therein being satisfied, bars the transferor or any person claiming under him to enforce right over the property against the transferee under such contract. Therefore, even in the absence of a registered sale deed, M. Lakshmikanthaiah, who claims that possession of the subject land was delivered to him through the contract of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney executed by V. Gourinath, cannot be said to have no interest over the subject land. However, this Court hastens to add that M. Lakshmikanthaiah needs to establish his right against V. Srinivas in an appropriate civil proceedings that may be instituted by either of the parties for adjudication of their interse rights. Evidently, as a person who has deep interest in the property, M. Lakshmikanthaiah has questioned the order of respondent No.4 at the right earnest by filing an appeal before respondent No.3 against the order of resumption passed by respondent No.4 and a further revision before respondent No.2. As noted hereinbefore, M. Lakshmikanthaiah has, in fact, succeeded before respondent No.2 in getting the subject land restored to him. In the face of these admitted facts, it is wholly iniquitous to non-suit M. Lakshmikanthaiah only on the ground that he does not hold a registered sale deed in respect of the subject land or that the authenticity of the General Power of Attorney-cum-Agreement of sale purportedly executed by V. Gourinath in his favour, is seriously disputed by the latter’s legal heir, V. Srinivas. Coming to V. Srinivas, it is true that he has failed to question the order of resumption passed by respondent No.4. However, the reason putforth by Sri D.V. Sitharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for him, for not doing so, is convincing. Coming to V. Srinivas, it is true that he has failed to question the order of resumption passed by respondent No.4. However, the reason putforth by Sri D.V. Sitharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for him, for not doing so, is convincing. It is an admitted fact that respondent No.4 has not issued notice to V. Srinivas. This fact is quite evident from the resumption order dated 16-1-2004 passed by respondent No.4 wherein he has stated that notice in Form-1 was issued to Shaik Shafiq Ahmed only and that the notice was returned with the endorsement “No such named person in this house”. Much before the said notice was issued, the subject land was already sold by Shaik Shafiq Ahmed to V. Gourinath, through registered sale deed dated 12-7-1984. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that V. Srinivas had no knowledge of the resumption order passed by respondent No.4. In this context, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 that there was no need for issuing notice under the Act to the subsequent purchaser of the assigned land has no merit. Under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, the competent authority may, by order, take possession of the assigned land after evicting the person in possession in such manner as may be prescribed. The A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 1977 (for short “the Rules”) prescribed the procedure for eviction of the transferees of assigned lands. Under Rule 3 of the said Rules, a notice shall be given in Form-1 to the person who acquired any assigned land in contravention of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. Thus, irrespective of the number of transactions taken place in respect of the assigned land contrary to the provisions of the Act, the person who acquired the assigned land and is in possession of the same is entitled to a notice in Form-1. However, in this case, as noted above, there is a serious dispute as to who among M. Lakshmikanthaiah and V. Srinivas, is in possession of the subject land. But the fact that remains is that notice was not given to either of the said parties by respondent No.4 before passing the resumption order. However, in this case, as noted above, there is a serious dispute as to who among M. Lakshmikanthaiah and V. Srinivas, is in possession of the subject land. But the fact that remains is that notice was not given to either of the said parties by respondent No.4 before passing the resumption order. It is therefore legitimate on the part of V. Srinivas to plead that as he had no notice of the proposed resumption of the subject land and the order of resumption, he could not question the resumption order passed by respondent No.4 and that as respondent No.2 has allowed the revision petition filed by M. Lakshmikanthaiah, there was no need for him to question the resumption order till respondent No.1 has reversed the order of respondent No.2. As soon as the order of respondent No.2 was set-aside by respondent No.1, V. Srinivas has filed W.P.No.21352/2012. In the light of the above discussed facts, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 that both the writ petitioners lack locus standi to file the present Writ Petitions. G.O.Ms.No.421, dated 3-7-2012 and the ancillary submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties : Para-24 of the impugned G.O. reproduced in the foregoing part of this Judgment formed basis for reversing the order of respondent No.2. The discussion undertaken hereinabove renders the conclusions arrived at by respondent No.1 in the revision petition filed before it by the Society, untenable and unsustainable. In the light of the conclusions drawn by this Court, it is not necessary for this Court to deal with the second submission advanced by Sri D.V. Sitharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for V. Srinivas s/o. V. Gourinath, that the very initiation of the resumption proceedings by respondent No.4 nearly 35 years after the first sale of the subject land is unsustainable in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court. Similarly, the submissions of Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel and Sri R.N. Hemendranath Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.5, that the fact that M. Lakshmikanthaiah has indulged in fabrication of the General Power of Attorney-cum-Agreement of sale is evident from the stand taken by V. Srinivas s/o. V. Gourinath and that therefore appropriate action needs to be taken against M. Lakshmikanthaiah for making deliberately false claim, as held by this Court in Yalasa Swapna Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai ( 2010(4) ALT 629 ) and In Re: Suo Motu Proceedings against R. Karuppan, Advocate (2001(5) SCC 589) cannot be considered. As discussed earlier, the authenticity or otherwise of the General Power of Attorney-cum-agreement of sale in question is an issue which arises inter-parties between M. Lakshmikanthaiah and V. Srinivas. As this Court is mainly concerned with the legality or otherwise of the resumption order passed by respondent No.4, the said issue is not germane for consideration and adjudication in these Writ Petitions. Conclusions and the result: The above analysis of the facts and law would lead to the inevitable conclusions that Babu Rao Joshi was a Political Sufferer and the subject land was assigned to him in that capacity and that as per the State Government policy, the land assigned to a Political Sufferer could be sold without any restrictions. The resumption order dated 16-1-2004 passed by respondent No.4, as confirmed by respondent No.1 by the impugned G.O. cannot therefore be sustained and both these orders are accordingly quashed. As a necessary corollary, the allotment of the subject land to respondent No.5 following the order passed by respondent No.4 and during the pendency of the revision petition before respondent No.2, cannot be sustained. As evident from the counter affidavit of respondent No.4, after respondent No.2 allowed the revision petition filed by M. Lakshmikanthaiah on 24-11-2008, the possession of the subject land was restored to M. Lakshmikanthaiah under Memo No.B/2545/2003, dated 22-5-2009. However, in WPMP No.42980/2012 in W.P.No.20676/2012 filed by M. Lakshmikanthaiah, this Court has granted interim order on 7-11-2012 permitting him to fence the subject land as per the boundaries fixed by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District on 18-1-2009 and 22-5-2009. Thus, the subject land is kept apart by raising a fence around the same. However, in WPMP No.42980/2012 in W.P.No.20676/2012 filed by M. Lakshmikanthaiah, this Court has granted interim order on 7-11-2012 permitting him to fence the subject land as per the boundaries fixed by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District on 18-1-2009 and 22-5-2009. Thus, the subject land is kept apart by raising a fence around the same. In view of the serious interse disputes between M. Lakshmikanthaiah and V. Srinivas s/o. V. Gourinath, over the subject land, it is not desirable to direct restoration of possession to either of the two writ petitioners. Instead, it is directed that the subject land shall be kept “on as is where is basis” in the custody of respondent No.4 till such time as the two writ petitioners settle the dispute either through judicial adjudication or out of Court settlement. Respondent No.4 shall handover possession of the subject land to the petitioner(s) as per such settlement. The Writ Petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petitions, WPMP Nos. 3622/2013, 29129/2013, and WVMP No.549/2013 in W.P.No.20676/2012 are disposed of as infructuous.