ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the resumption proceedings of the primary authority in File No. B/1196/1997, dated 16.04.2005, two confirmation orders, namely the appellate authority in Appeal No. L/4179/2005, dated 19.01.2007 and the revisional authority in Revision Petition No. E3/428/2007, dated 07.07.2012 and consequently, to direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the land admeasuring Ac. 10.29 guntas in Sy. No. 30 and 38 of Rukmapur Village, Choppadandi Mandal, Karimnagar District. 2. According to the petitioner, she is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 31.10.1981 from Yerramalla Goura Raju and Satyananda Gandhi, who in turn had purchased the said land under a registered sale deed, dated 16.04.1970 bearing document No. 1165 of 1970 and under Section 50-B Certificate bearing No. A8/14571/1969, dated 05.09.1970 from Lanka Durgaiah, Chiluka Pochaiah and Lankadasari Rajaiah, who are the original assignees of the subject land. While so, the Tahsildar, Choppadandi Mandal, Karimnagar District, the respondent No. 3 herein, invoking the provisions under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’) issued a notice, dated 15.12.1997, calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why the land shall not be resumed, as the said land is assigned land and the assignees had sold the land to Yerramalla Goura Raju and Satyananda Gandhi. Having not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the respondent No. 3, vide proceedings dated 12.03.1998 in File No. B/1196/97 had passed resumption orders on the ground that the petitioner had purchased the land that was assigned to “landless poor persons.” Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar Division, the respondent No. 2 herein, who in turn, disposed of the appeal, being Appeal No. L/4512/1999 holding that the applicability of Section 3(5) of the Act has to be decided. Subsequent thereto, the respondent No. 3 had issued a fresh notice, dated 05.01.2005, to which, the petitioner had filed an explanation on 10.01.2005 contending that the provisions of the Act cannot be applied against the land and sought to drop the proposed action. Subsequent thereto, the respondent No. 3 had issued a fresh notice, dated 05.01.2005, to which, the petitioner had filed an explanation on 10.01.2005 contending that the provisions of the Act cannot be applied against the land and sought to drop the proposed action. However, the respondent No. 3, vide proceedings, dated 16.04.2005 in File No. B/1196/1997 has passed the resumption orders holding that the petitioner is not a “landless poor person” and therefore, Section 3(1) of the Act has no application. Challenging the said order, the petitioner approached the appellant authority, namely respondent No. 2 by filing Appeal No. L/4179/2005, and the respondent No. 2, by order dated 19.01.2007, has dismissed the appeal. The Revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the respondent No. 1 on 07.07.2012. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the subject land was assigned in the year 1961 in favour of Lanka Durgaiah, Chiluka Pochaiah and Lankadasari Rajaiah; that subsequently, the land was purchased by Yerramalla Goura Raju and his son, Satyananda Gandhi in the year 1970 through sada bainama; that the same was regularized by the revenue authorities under Section 50-B of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950; and that the petitioner has purchased the subject land in the year 1981 after verifying the title deeds and the revenue records, particularly Pahanies and also the proceedings issued in favour of the vendors of the petitioner under Section 50-B of the Act of 1950. The learned Senior Counsel has contended that the Act contemplates issuance of a notice on the original assignees as well as the purchaser of the assigned land, but however, in the present case, the respondent authorities, contrary to the said established procedure and the mandate of law, have put neither the original assignees nor the purchaser of the land on notice, but have only put the petitioner on notice, who is the second purchaser of the land. Thus, the impugned proceedings are vitiated under law and therefore, liable to be set aside. Furthermore, the first sale of the subject land was in the year 1970 and the initiation of the impugned proceedings was in the year 1997, i.e. there is inordinate delay of 27 years in initiating the impugned proceedings. Thus, the impugned proceedings are vitiated under law and therefore, liable to be set aside. Furthermore, the first sale of the subject land was in the year 1970 and the initiation of the impugned proceedings was in the year 1997, i.e. there is inordinate delay of 27 years in initiating the impugned proceedings. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, even though the Act does not stipulate any period of limitation, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, the authorities are under obligation to initiate necessary action within a “reasonable time.” That depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has held that any action contemplated after a lapse of even three years as unreasonable and has proceeded to set aside the orders passed by the authorities after lapse of more than a decade or so. But, in this particular case, the impugned proceedings are initiated after a lapse of more than 27 years and the orders were passed after a lapse of 35 years and the said abnormal delay cannot be countenanced. The learned Senior Counsel has contended that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser, as he has purchased the subject land only after verifying the revenue records as well as the sale deed executed in favour of the vendors of the petitioner. Inasmuch as the revenue records reflect that the subject land is patta land, the petitioner had purchased the same under bona fide belief that the same is patta land. Therefore, for the lapse on the part of the revenue authorities, the petitioner cannot be punished. Lastly, the learned Senior Counsel has contended that if the impugned proceedings are allowed to stand, the same will not only result in depriving the petitioner of his property purchased under the bona fide belief of it being patta land, but also in violation of the right to property guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which mandates that no citizen can be deprived of the property except due process established by law. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel has prayed to set aside the impugned proceedings of the primary authority and the two confirmatory orders of the appellate and the revisional authority. 4. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel has prayed to set aside the impugned proceedings of the primary authority and the two confirmatory orders of the appellate and the revisional authority. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, has contended that the petitioner, knowing fully aware of the nature of the land as “assigned land” had purchased the same; that as per the provisions of the Act, irrespective of the fact whether or not the petitioner is having the knowledge of the land as assigned one, the Act will apply and there is no bar/restriction under the Act which stipulates that the action shall be initiated only against the original assignee and the immediate purchaser. Even though the petitioner is a second purchaser, he will automatically step into the shoes of his vendor, and therefore, he is also equally liable for eviction from the assigned land. Even if there is a procedural lapse, the same cannot be taken advantage by the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader has also argued that if any orders are passed in favour of the petitioner, the same will amount to allowing the illegality for perpetuity. The principles of natural justice were followed, the petitioner was put on notice and only after affording due opportunity of hearing, the impugned orders were passed. In order to claim the benefit under the Act, the petitioner is neither a bona fide purchaser nor a landless poor person, as he had purchased more than Ac. 10.00 guntas of land. Besides that, the family of the petitioner is having lands in the very same village. Therefore, the petitioner does not fit into the exemption granted under the provisions of the Act, and deserves no leniency from this Court, and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader has argued that before purchasing the subject land, the petitioner ought to have taken the burden of verifying the revenue records to ascertain the nature of land and whether his vendor is having valid title or not over the subject land. That the sale of assigned land is prohibited under the Act and any transaction of sale is deemed as null and void and is non est in the eye of law. That the sale of assigned land is prohibited under the Act and any transaction of sale is deemed as null and void and is non est in the eye of law. That there is no period of limitation prescribed under the Act and whenever any contravention of the provisions of the Act come to the notice of the authorities, they will initiate action against the purchaser and also the vendor. That in this particular case, the whereabouts of the vendors is not known as they have left the village and therefore, it was not possible to serve the notice on them. The petitioner cannot plead that action has to be taken only against the original assignees and the subsequent purchaser and not the second purchaser. It has further been submitted that even if the petitioner was not aware about the fact of the property being assigned land, the principle of caveat emptor (Buyer Beware) will apply and he cannot claim to be a bona-fide purchaser and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Perused the material available on record. 6. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced by both the counsel, it is necessary to extract the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 of the Act: Section 2 Definitions:- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires: (1) “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: (2) xxx (3) “landless poor person” means 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 or such other extent of land as has been or may be specified by the Government in this behalf; from time to time and who has no other means of livelihood: Explanation - For the purposes of computing the extent of land under this clause, 0.404686 hectares (one acre) of wet land shall be equal to 0.809372 hectares (two acres) of dry land. (4) xxx (5) xxx (6) “transfer” means any sale, gift, exchange, mortgage with or without possession, lease or any other transaction with assigned lands, not being a testamentary disposition and includes a charge on such property or a contract relating to assigned lands in respect of such sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease or other transaction. Section 3 - Prohibition of transfer of assigned lands: (1) Where before or after the commencement of this Act any land has been assigned by the Government to a landless poor person for purposes of cultivation or as a house-site then, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force or in the deed of transfer or other document relating to such land, it shall not be transferred and shall be deemed never to have been transferred; and accordingly no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer. (2) No landless poor person shall transfer any assigned land, and no person shall acquire any assigned land, either by purchase, gift, lease, mortgage, exchange or otherwise. (3) Any transfer or acquisition made in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be deemed to be null and void. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to any transaction of the nature referred to in sub-section (2) in execution of a decree or order of a civil Court or of any award or order of any other authority. (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. 7. 7. Section 4 of the Act speaks of the consequences of breach of provisions of Section 3, whereby the authorities can take possession of the assigned land after evicting the person in possession and can reassign the said resumed land to the transferee, provided he has purchased the land in good faith and for valuable consideration on or before 29.01.2007, 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. 8. Admittedly, in the case on hand, neither the facts nor the provisions of the law are disputed. The petitioner has purchased the land in 1981 from his vendors, who in turn, had purchased the same from the original assignees of the land in the year 1961. A Full Bench of this Court in Dharma Reddy vs. Sub-Collector, Bodhan, 1987 (1) ALT 124 (F.B.) has categorically held that the provisions of this Act are applicable retrospectively, and any contravention of the provisions of the Act by a person, after G.O.Ms. No. 1142-Rev, dated 18.06.1954 would be liable for consequences under the provisions of the Act. Even though the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the procedure contemplated under the Act was violated by the authorities, a reading of the averments of the counter would show that the original assignees as well as the first purchasers were not traceable as they had already sold the land and left the village. The provisions of Section 4 of the Act, empowers the authorities to put on notice the person, who has purchased the land in contravention of the provisions of the Act and for taking necessary action. It is, therefore, clear from the reading of the provisions of the Act that there is no necessity to either put the original assignee, or the subsequent purchaser on notice. But, what all the law mandates is that the “person in possession” of the assigned land is required to be put on notice. It is not the case of the petitioner herein that he was not put on notice or he was not given an opportunity of hearing. But, what all the law mandates is that the “person in possession” of the assigned land is required to be put on notice. It is not the case of the petitioner herein that he was not put on notice or he was not given an opportunity of hearing. It is the specific stand of the learned Senior Counsel that neither the original assignees of the land nor the first purchasers were put on notice and that the petitioner being the second purchaser cannot be subjected to the provisions of the Act. With due respect to the learned Senior Counsel, the said argument does not hold water in view of the fact that the Act specifically contemplates that the “person in possession” of the assigned land shall be put on notice irrespective of the fact whether he is a first purchaser or subsequent purchaser. Once the land is held to be assigned land, the question of escaping the rigors of the provisions of the Act does not arise. The only relief, under Section 3(5) of the Act, that can be granted to a person, who has purchased the assigned land, is that he should have purchased the land under bona fide belief provided that he should be a landless poor person. In this connection, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner himself has purchased more than Ac. 10.00 guntas of land and besides that, his family is having more than Ac. 5.00 guntas of land. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be termed as a ‘landless poor person’ in order to extend the benefit provided under the Act. Even if the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner has purchased the assigned land in good faith and bona fide belief, is accepted, still he does not get the exemption, as he is not a landless poor person. The other contention of the learned Senior Counsel that, the provisions of the Act have to be applied within a reasonable period, also lacks merit, as there is no limitation period prescribed under the Act. The other contention of the learned Senior Counsel that, the provisions of the Act have to be applied within a reasonable period, also lacks merit, as there is no limitation period prescribed under the Act. The learned counsel has relied on the two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Government of A.P. and Others vs. Gudepu Sailoo and Others, (2000) 4 SCC 625 and Collector vs. P. Mangamma and Others, (2003) 4 SCC 488 to buttress his arguments that the action contemplated under the Act has to be within reasonable time and not after decades. The judgments relied by the learned Senior Counsel emanated from the then Hon’ble High Court of A.P. under the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317-Fasli. The Court, while interpreting Section 50-B of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and Section 166-B of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317-Fasli, has held that the words “any time” used in the Section has to be interpreted as “within reasonable time.” However, if the same analogy is applied to interpret that the action under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 can only be initiated within a reasonable time, the said contention is not only against the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, but the very purport of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 will be defeated. The Act contemplates action against the person in possession of the land and not the original assignee. It is pertinent to extract Section 4(5) of the Act: “4. Consequences of breach of provisions of Section 3:- (1) xxx (2) xxx (3) xxx (4) xxx (5) For the purposes of this section, where any assigned land is in possession of a person, other than the original assignee or his legal heir, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that there is a contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 3.” Section 7 - Penalty:- (1) Whoever acquires any assigned land in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or with both. Provided that any person who has voluntarily disclosed and surrendered the assigned land in his possession or discloses and surrenders the assigned land in his possession within 90 days from the commencement of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) (Amendment) Act, 2007 shall be exempted from Prosecution. (2) Whoever opposes or impedes the District Collector or any person authorised, in taking possession of any assigned land under this Act shall be punished with imprisonment which any extend to six months or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both. (2A) Any Officer, violating the provisions under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 5 shall be punished with simple imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both. (3) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this section, except with the previous sanction of the District Collector.” 9. Even the issuance of notice under Form-I is to the person who is in occupation of assigned land and not to the original assignee of the land. The Act does not contemplate that any action, in regard to resumption of assigned land, should be taken within a specified time. Therefore, in the absence of any period of limitation for initiating necessary action under the Act, the question of interpreting the word “reasonable time” in the present case does not arise. In other words, the Act contemplates taking action at any point of time soon after it comes to the knowledge of the officials about the contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Moreover, this Court is primarily concerned as to whether the procedure prescribed under the Act has been followed or not, but not the decision itself. As seen from the record, the authorities have followed the procedure contemplated under the Act and in furtherance of the same, put the petitioner on notice, gave him ample opportunity of hearing and then passed the impugned order. This Court does not find any infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned orders warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the forgoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 11. This Court does not find any infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned orders warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the forgoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 11. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.