ORDER : This Writ petition is filed with the following relief: “….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in nature of Mandamus, declaring 1st Panchanama dated 23.11.2009 conducted by the respondent herein, whereby an extent of Ac.17.02 guntas of land situated in Sy.Nos.817/34 to 817/40 of Paloncha village and Mandal, Khammam District, belonging to the petitioners was taken possession by the respondents herein, as illegal, arbitrary, un-reasonable, without authority of law, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and issue a direction to the respondents herein not to give effect to the same and to permit the petitioners to be in possession of the said land…” 2. Heard Sri Kiran Reddy Mallarapu, learned Counsel. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the owners and possessors of different extents of land, total to an extent of Ac.17.02 Guntas situated in Sy.No.817/34 to 817/40 of Palvancha Village, having purchased the same through various registered sale deeds and were in possession of the same ever since the date of their purchase till some illegal encroachers in the name of Adivasai Samkeshama Parishdad and Tudum Debba and MRPs and they have tried to grab the scheduled land. Despite of representations made by the petitioners, the respondents have not acted upon for providing protection to them. In view of the same, the petitioners approached this Court and filed W.P.No.18543 of 2009 and the same was disposed of on 03.09.2009 and directed the revenue and police authorities to act upon the representations of the petitioners. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that on 23.11.2009, after receiving Contempt Notice, the Municipal, Forest and Police authorities have evicted the encroachers. Thereafter, to the surprise of the petitioners, the respondent No.1, through impugned Proceeding Nos.F/4607/2008 dated 22.11.2009, have taken over possession of the subject land under cover of panchanama on the ground that the said land is a Government land. Against the said action of the officials of respondent No.1, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition contending that the action of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is illegal, arbitrary to the directions of the High Court in W.P.No.18543 of 2009 of 2009 and this Court granted interim stay of panchanama dated 23.11.2009 on 15.02.2010. 5. Against the said action of the officials of respondent No.1, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition contending that the action of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is illegal, arbitrary to the directions of the High Court in W.P.No.18543 of 2009 of 2009 and this Court granted interim stay of panchanama dated 23.11.2009 on 15.02.2010. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the lands in Sy.Nos.817/34 to 817/40 were allotted to the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners under Laoni Rules, by the then Social Service Officer, Yellandu and the said fact reveals from the entries in the pahanies. There is no restriction on the transfer of lands allotted under Laoni Rules; as such the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 do not applicable to the subject lands. The respondent No.2 have passed orders to that effect in CMA No.3 of 1993, CMA No.4 of 1993 and also CMA No.10/1995 dated 18.01.2002, in respect of subject lands. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondents have not furnished the copy of proceedings Under Section 145 Cr.P.C., said to have been issued by the respondent No.2 vide Proc.No.F/4607/2008 dated 22.11.2009 nor they issued any notices to the petitioners and the officials of respondent No.1 have not followed the procedure laid down under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The documents filed by the official-respondents along with the counter, clearly shows that the respondent No.1 has not followed the procedure as contemplated under Sub-Section 3 of Section 145 Cr.P.C., and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned panchanama. 7. In support of the contentions of the petitioners, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the following decisions: Appearing for the petitioners and Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignments. V.Subbayamma Vs. Joint Collector, Additional District Magistrate, Guntur and others, 2013 (6) ALD 46 Chavalli Anilaja and others Vs. Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others, 2017 (3) ALD 491 Sunkara Srujana Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and others, 2014 (3) ALD 70 8. V.Subbayamma Vs. Joint Collector, Additional District Magistrate, Guntur and others, 2013 (6) ALD 46 Chavalli Anilaja and others Vs. Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others, 2017 (3) ALD 491 Sunkara Srujana Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and others, 2014 (3) ALD 70 8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment as per counter submits that the petitioners have purchased the assigned lands against the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short the ‘the Act) and the Original assignees are prohibited from alienating the lands to third parties, as such the claim of the petitioners over the subject lands is contrary to the provisions of the Act. The disputed land is a Government Assigned land and it is not a private land and any transaction thereon is in violation of the Act No.9 of 1977. The revenue officials have taken over the possession of lands, under cover of a panchanma, in order to control the law and order situation and to avoid any further law and order problem and acted upon the directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Palvancha vide Proceeding Nos.F/4007/2009 dated 22.11.2009, and the same was also informed to the petitioners through notices. In view taking over possession of the disputed land as per the direction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Palvancha the law and order problem was brought under control. The petitioners instead of approaching the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for vacation of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., approached this Court and requested to dismiss the petition. 9. After hearing both sides, this court of the considered view that, the petitioners have purchased various house site plots in Sy.Nos.817/34 to 817/40 of Paloncha village and Bhadradri-Kothagudem District (erstwhile Khammam District). The assignments in Sy.Nos.817/34 to 817/40 was made by the Special Social Welfare Officer, Yellandu in the year 1950 and there was no condition of prohibition of transfer of land and the same was declared in the orders in CMA Nos.3/1993, 4/1993 and CMA No.10/1995, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Paloncha on 18.01.2002. The assignments in Sy.Nos.817/34 to 817/40 was made by the Special Social Welfare Officer, Yellandu in the year 1950 and there was no condition of prohibition of transfer of land and the same was declared in the orders in CMA Nos.3/1993, 4/1993 and CMA No.10/1995, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Paloncha on 18.01.2002. The Operative portion of the orders passed by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Paloncha, in CMA No.10/199 dt.18.01.2002, is as follows: “With regard to applicability of conditions non-availability for the for the assigned lands granted in 1950 the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad in Second Appeal No.161 of 1996 dated 25.03.1997 has held that the land assigned under Laoni Rule of 1950 and 1953 there were no condition of prohibition of transfer land assigned in 1950 under those rules conditions of non-availability of assigned land enforced only in 1958 under G.O.ms.No.1406 dt.25.07.1998. Further held that when there was no conditions of non-viability therefore the transactions is not of A.P.Assigned land (PoT) Act, 1977, since the assignment of land granted by the Social Service Officer, Yellandu in the year 1950. In view of the above order that the provisions of A.P.Assigned Land (POT), Act, 1977 do not apply for the lands mentioned in CMA No.3-1993, 4/1993 and 10/1995. Also I further order that the respondent (Mandal Revenue Officer, Palwancha) shall restore the patta entries in the village records of Palwancha in the name of Appellant No..1. Thus, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed”. 10. The judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners squarely apply to the facts of the instant case. 11. In V.Subbayamma Vs. Joint Collector, Additional District Magistrate, Guntur and others case, (supra 1), this Court held that: “A proceedings 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 exists namely, that the land must be an assigned land, that the assignment contains a clause prohibiting alienations; 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”. 12. Unless these requirements are satisfied, the competent authority cannot exercise the jurisdiction”. 12. The assignment of land in land in Sy.Nos.817/34 to 817/40 was done in the year 1950 under Laoni Khas Rules, and there was no condition of prohibition of alienation of assigned lands as per the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer held in CMA No.10/1995 dated 18.01.2002. 13. This Court in Chavalli Anilaja and others Vs. Collector, Ranga Reddy District, (supra 2), categorically held that: “A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1997 is not applicable to the assignments in 1961 under the Laoni Rules, as there was no condition of non-alienation in order of assignment. Issuance of show-cause notice should not be an empty ritual. It should provide reasonable and fair opportunity to recipient of show cause notice to defend his title and possession of valuable right to property. Facts gathered by the respondents without the petitioners’ knowledge, who is in possession of the property, behind his back and without giving an opportunity to deny or rebut the factual assertion, vitiates the proceedings”. 14. The powers must be exercised by the authorities within reasonable time and in Chavalli Anilaja and others Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others (supra 2), this Court in para No.15 held that: “ ……it is true that there is no limitation prescribed for exercise of corrective power, but the legal position is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court as well as the Supreme Court that even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of power, such power must be exercised within reasonable period”. What constitutes would constitute reasonable time would again depend upon the facts of each case. By virtue of long lapse of time and intervening delay led to creation of third party rights, sometimes, bona fide, third party rights which cannot be trampled. No limitation is prescribed, if does not mean there would be no time limit. Action should be exercised immediately on the happening of violation or within a reasonable time”. 15. The respondents failed to file any assignment patta or shown any condition of non-alleviation of land along with the counter. 16. This court in Sunakra Sujana Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and others (supra 3), at para No.9, held that: “…. Action should be exercised immediately on the happening of violation or within a reasonable time”. 15. The respondents failed to file any assignment patta or shown any condition of non-alleviation of land along with the counter. 16. This court in Sunakra Sujana Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and others (supra 3), at para No.9, held that: “…. Respondent No.3 has not filed a copy of the purported laoni patta nor has he pleaded in the counter-affidavit that he has perused the laoni patta and that the same contains any prohibition of alienation. Thus, the respondent No.3 has failed to discharge initial burden placed on him to show that there is a prohibition of alienation. The registered sale transactions taken as many as three occasions and the pattadar passbooks and title deed issued to the petitioner’s predecessors-in-title would establish that the subject land was treated as a freehold land. Having allowed the parties to sell the property from time to time, the respondents have acquiesced in raising the plea that the subject land belongs to the Government at this length of time of time” 17. The impugned panchanama dated 23.11.2009 conducted by the respondents was without any notice to the petitioners and without following due process of law and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also this Court the impugned panchanama is liable to be set aside. 18. Accordingly, the impugned panchanama dated 23.11.2009 conducted by the 1st respondent is hereby set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. 19. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.