ORDER : Prayer sought in the writ petition reads as under : “… to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent No.4 in non-considering representation made by the petitioner and non-following the provisions of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers), Act, 1977 and Amendment Act, 12 of 2018 non-granting the patta to the petitioner on his cultivating land in Sy.No.288 to an extent of Ac.1.00 gts., situated at Marrigudem Revenue Village Shivar, Marrigudem Mandal, Nalgonda District, is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unjust and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th respondent to consider the application of the petitioner and to follow the provisions of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and Amendment Act 12 of 2018 non-granting the patta to the petitioner on his cultivating land in Sy.No.288 to an extent of Ac.1.00 gts., situated at Marrigudem Revenue Village Shivar, Marrigudem Mandal, Nalgonda District, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. Petitioner claims to have purchased the agriculture land to an extent of Ac.0.13 guntas, Ac.0.13 guntas and Ac.0.14 guntas, respectively in Survey No.288 of Marrigudem Revenue Village Shivar, Marriggudem Mandal, Nalgonda District. By this writ petition, petitioner seeks mandamus to the Tahsildar, Marrigudem Mandal, respondent No.4, to consider the application submitted by the petitioner to reassign the land purchased by him and to mutate his name in the revenue records in the place of original assignee. According to petitioner, he is also a landless poor person and he made a bona fide purchase without knowing the true facts of assignment and therefore assignment should be granted to him. 4. According to petitioner, he is also a landless poor person and he made a bona fide purchase without knowing the true facts of assignment and therefore assignment should be granted to him. 4. In support of the claim, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on amended Section 3(5), [Section 3: Prohibition of transfer of assigned lands: (5) Nothing in this Section shall apply to an assigned land which was purchased by a landless poor person in good faith and for valuable consideration from the original assignee or his transferee prior to the commencement of this act and which is in the possession of such person for purposes of cultivation or as a house-site on the date of such commencement.] and Section 4(1)(b)(i), [Section 4: Consequences of breach of provisions of Section 3: (1) (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 31st December, 2017], 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 re-assignee including any other land held by him/her does not exceed 5.00 acres dry land or 2 1/2 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;] of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, ‘the Act, 1977’). According to learned counsel, if a purchase was made by a landless poor person, it can be validated and reassignment can be granted to the purchaser and therefore not acting on the application submitted by the petitioner for reassignment is erroneous. 5. Two aspects are to be noticed. According to learned counsel, if a purchase was made by a landless poor person, it can be validated and reassignment can be granted to the purchaser and therefore not acting on the application submitted by the petitioner for reassignment is erroneous. 5. Two aspects are to be noticed. Firstly, as of now, the State has not taken steps to resume the land from the assignee/or person in occupation, but the very fact that petitioner claims to have purchased and is in possession and applies for validation of the sale shows that the original assignee violated the terms of assignment and the Act, 1977. Once the terms of assignment are violated, it is open to the State to cancel the assignment and to resume the land. After the decision to resume the land, it is open to the State to reassign the land to the assignee or it can also validate the purchase made by the landless poor person and reassign the land to such person. That stage has not reached. 6. At any rate, the subsequent purchaser has to satisfy the competent authority that it was a bona fide purchase, he is also a landless poor person and even after reassigning the concerned land, the landless poor person will not have more than Acs.5.00 of land in his/her possession. Thus, it cannot be said that the purchaser of assigned land can claim as an accrued or vested right to reassign by validation of the sale, as a matter of course, for the petitioner to contend that the respondents are not acting upon the application submitted by the petitioner, which application was premature. 7. Further, the agreement of sale, which was not registered, was executed on 06.12.2008 on a Rs.50/- bond paper. As per the amended Act, 1977, the purchases made up to 31.12.2017 were brought within the purview of consideration for regularization/validation of purchase of an assigned land. Prior to this amendment, the cut off date was the date of commencement of the Act, 1977. To overcome this, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on another agreement of sale stated to have been executed on a plain paper in the year 2013. It is not explained by the petitioner how he entered into two agreements of sale concerning same property. Further, in the agreement of sale of the year 2013, there was no mention of earlier agreement of sale. It is not explained by the petitioner how he entered into two agreements of sale concerning same property. Further, in the agreement of sale of the year 2013, there was no mention of earlier agreement of sale. Both the sale deeds were later to the date of commencement of the Act, 1977. 8. At this stage, learned Assistant Government Pleader sought to contend that in exercise of powers vested under Section 4 (1) (c) of the Act, 1977 this village is notified as exempted from assignment/reassignment of land resumed. According to learned Assistant Government Pleader, whenever such a notification is issued, the question of reassignment does not arise. Having regard to the facts noted above and in view of the statutory environment governing the issue, the Court is not expressing opinion on this aspect and leaves it open to be urged in appropriate proceedings. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.