ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners for writ of certiorari questioning the order dated 22.11.2014 in RC No.E2/2830/2014. 2. This Court has heard Ms. Priyanvita, learned counsel appearing for Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 4; and Sri B. Abhay Siddhanth Mootha, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent for Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2014 by which it was held that the petitioners are not entitled to any rights in the land which they have purchased holding that since they are not landless poor persons and that the sale in their favour is contrary to the conditions of the assignment of the land. It also directed that Pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the purchaser under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books. Act 1971 (for short “ROR Act”) is cancelled. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the land in Sy.No.920/1 originally belongs to four people; who have mortgaged the same in 1950 under a Registered Mortgage Deed No.908/1950, dated 15.05.1950 and availed a loan. Since they could not repay the loan they sold the property to the mortgagor through a registered sale deed dated 22.11.1953. The purchaser sold the property to Golla Seshanna under a registered sale deed in 1957. G.Seshanna in turn sold the land in 1975 to one B.C. Rajeswaramma under the registered sale deed. The said Rajeswaramma formed a layout, after obtaining the permission from the Kurnool Municipal Corporation, and sold various bits of land. The petitioners are the purchasers of plots of land in the said layout. Learned counsel submits that all these facts are not seriously in dispute. Learned counsel points out that the mortgage and sale of the property etc., from 1950 to 2006 etc., is noted in the impugned order. The petitioners are the purchasers of plots of land in the said layout. Learned counsel submits that all these facts are not seriously in dispute. Learned counsel points out that the mortgage and sale of the property etc., from 1950 to 2006 etc., is noted in the impugned order. Learned counsel submits that the 3rd respondent claiming to be a legal heir of the original assignee has filed an application before the Joint Collector who entertained the same and came to the conclusion that the petitioners are not landless poor persons, that their sales are contrary to the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “POT Act”) and the land should, therefore, be allotted to the 3rd respondent. Learned counsel points out that the assignment was initially made in 1922 and there is no record filed by the 3rd respondent to prove that there is a condition against non-assignment in the assignment. It is also argued that assignments made prior to 1954 do not have the condition of non-alienation. Lastly, it is submitted that the provisions of the POT Act are not retrospective in operation and they will not apply. It is also pointed out information obtained under the RTI Act shows that the 3rd respondent has obtained Pattadar passbook in his name. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners by relying upon judgment of the learned single Judge of the combined High Court reported in Shaik Abdul Kalam Azad and Ors., v A. Babu and Ors., Manu/AP/0575/2017, argues that her submissions are fully supported by this judgment. She points out that the learned single Judge relied upon earlier judgments of this Court where the Court noticed that prior to 1954 there was no condition with regard to non-alienation and that in the absence of original patta being filed the 2nd respondent did not have any material to come to a conclusion that the land could not be alienated. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the writ petitioners are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, who appears to the official respondents argues in line with the counter. He points out that the land was assigned, with a condition of non-alienability as per BSO 15 (37)(4)(i) since the land was assigned to depressed class people. He also argues the transaction of sale is hit by Section 3 of the POT Act, 1977. He points out that the land was assigned, with a condition of non-alienability as per BSO 15 (37)(4)(i) since the land was assigned to depressed class people. He also argues the transaction of sale is hit by Section 3 of the POT Act, 1977. He, therefore, justifies the order passed. 6. On behalf of the 3rd respondent Sri Abhay argues the matter at length. He points out that Section 3 (1) of the POT Act clearly shows that whether before or after commencement of POT Act any land has been assigned to the landless poor it cannot be transferred. He submits that the land is only heritable but not alienable. The only exception as contended by the learned counsel that as per Section 3(5) of the POT Act which shows that if the land is purchased by the landless poor persons in good faith. Learned counsel submits that in the case on hand the purchasers are not landless poor persons. It is also argued that as per BSO 15(37)(4)(i) assignments are subject to non-alienability. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that as the land cannot be transferred and the provisions of the POT Act applied, this Court cannot grant any relief to the writ petitioners. 7. This Court after considering the submissions made; the documents filed and the averments in the counter affidavit notices that there is no dispute about the fact that the original assignees mortgaged these lands in 1950 by a registered mortgage deed. The subject land was sold on failure to pay the loan amount. Subsequent transactions took place in 1957, 1975, 2005 and 2006. The factual matrix is not really in dispute; that there is a layout approved and that plots were purchased by the writ petitioners is also not denied. 8. The original patta under which land was allotted in 1922 is, however, not available. This is specifically pleaded in the writ petition and is not denied. The Tahsildar’s counter admits that the original assignment was in 1922 and the same was lost in 1977. As per old 10 (1) record the land was supposedly classified as Depressed Classes Land. Therefore, relying upon BSO 15 (37)(4)(i) the impugned order was passed holding that there is a condition of non-alienability. However, this record is also not placed before the Court. As per old 10 (1) record the land was supposedly classified as Depressed Classes Land. Therefore, relying upon BSO 15 (37)(4)(i) the impugned order was passed holding that there is a condition of non-alienability. However, this record is also not placed before the Court. This Court also finds that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners based upon the judgment in Shaik Abdul Kalam Azad case (supra) supports her case. In that case also the learned single Judge noticed that the original patta was not produced. Learned single Judge held and rightly so that the failure to produce original patta leads to a drawing of an adverse inference. In addition, learned single Judge relied upon Clause 5 of G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18.06.1954, by which the condition that lands were assigned cannot be alienated was introduced. He relied upon various judgments which held that lands assigned prior to 1954 there was no condition prohibiting the alienation of assigned lands. In paragraph 63 he clearly held that no decision taking a different view was cited by the respondents. In paragraph 64 learned single Judge clearly held that since alienation was long prior to 1954 and as original patta was not produced it has to be held that there was no prohibition for the assignee to sale the land. Similarly, in paragraph 65 also it is held that it is wrong on the part of the authorities to presume that the original assignment was subject to a condition of prohibiting the alienation. In the case on hand also the original patta is not produced. The petitioners have asserted that the original patta is lost and that nobody was aware of the conditions of the assignment. It is also stated that there is no entry in the revenue record showing the condition of non-alienation. The State itself has filed a counter stating that the original D-form patta was lost in the floods in the year 1977. It is thus clear that there is no document to show that the condition of non-alienation was included in the original patta. 9. In addition, respondent-state relied upon an old 10 (1) account to contend that land was classified as depressed classes of land and that BSO 15 (37)(4)(i) would apply. A copy of the said document is, however, not filed for this Court to appreciate that there is such an entry in the record. 9. In addition, respondent-state relied upon an old 10 (1) account to contend that land was classified as depressed classes of land and that BSO 15 (37)(4)(i) would apply. A copy of the said document is, however, not filed for this Court to appreciate that there is such an entry in the record. In the absence of any documentary evidence the only inference that can be drawn is an adverse inference. 10. In addition, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners strongly support the case that is set up by the petitioner. The fact remains that from 1951 onwards there are a series of transactions by registered documents. A layout was also approved and individual plots of land were sold to various persons including the writ petitioners. The Joint Collector has not considered these issues while passing the impugned order. In addition, he also cancelled the Pattadar passbooks and title deed books issued to the petitioners vendors viz., Rajeswaramma. Such a power in the opinion of this Court is not available to the Joint Collector while passing the order under the POT Act, 1977. 11. For all the above mentioned reasons this Court holds that the impugned order suffers from serious infirmities. Since the order suffers from these infirmities and the calling for the original record is not warranted or needed in view of the pleadings and submissions. The writ can be disposed of with the available material. 12. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.