ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by respondent No.1 in case No.E1/5846/2007, dated 04.02.2009, confirming the orders passed in proceedings No.D/2639/2006, dated 24.09.2007 and proceedings No.B/1294/2001, dated 28.02.2002, passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively and to quash the same. 2. This Court, while admitting the Writ Petition by an order, dated 02.04.2009, suspended the operation of the impugned orders. The said order, dated 02.04.2009, was made absolute by an order, dated 02.02.2015. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the lands admeasuring Acs.2.38 gts., Acs.2.37 gts., and Acs.3.26 gts., situated in Sy.Nos.177/4, 177/5, and 177/27 respectively of Aziz Nagar Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under various registered Sale Deeds vide document Nos.10054/1988, 8794/1983 and 9/1981, dated 18.07.1988, 16.07.1990, and 28.02.1981 respectively, and her predecessors-in-title have purchased the land in Sy.No.177/4 admeasuring Acs.2.38 gts., from the original pattadar Mr. Ellaiah under registered Sale Deed, dated 25.05.1966 vide document No.513/1966 after obtaining necessary permission under Sections 47 and 48 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act, 1950'), granted by respondent No.3 herein through proceedings D.Dis.No.A-4/541/66, dated 24.05.1966. So also, the land admeasuring Acs.2.32 gts., situated in Sy.No.177/5 was purchased by the vendor of the petitioner from the original pattadar namely Mr. Dappu Pentaiah under registered Sale Deed, dated 25.05.1966, vide document No.515/1966, after obtaining permission under Sections 47 and 48 of the Act, 1950, through proceedings D.Dis.No.A4/544/66, dated 24.05.1966. Similarly, the land admeasuring Acs.3.26 gts., situated in Sy.No.177/27 was purchased by the vendor of the petitioner from the original pattadar Mr. M.Gandaiah and four others under registered Sale Deed, dated 25.05.1966, vide document No.511/1966 after obtaining permission under Sections 47 and 48 of the Act, 1950, through proceedings D.Dis.No.A4/540/66, dated 24.05.1966. The petitioner also claims to have constructed Poultry Sheds and have been carrying on its operations. 4. While things stood thus, respondent No.3 herein initiated the proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act, 1977’), by issuing Form-I notices alleging that the petitioner and several others have purchased the assigned lands situated in Sy.Nos.177/1 to 177/38 of Aziz Nagar Village in contravention of Section 3 of the Act, 1977. While things stood thus, respondent No.3 herein initiated the proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act, 1977’), by issuing Form-I notices alleging that the petitioner and several others have purchased the assigned lands situated in Sy.Nos.177/1 to 177/38 of Aziz Nagar Village in contravention of Section 3 of the Act, 1977. After having received the objections raised by the petitioner and others, respondent No.3 passed an order in proceedings No.B/1294/2001, dated 28.02.2002, resuming the entire land in Sy.No.177 of Aziz Nagar Village to the Government. 5. From the perusal of the said order, dated 28.02.2002, it is evident that respondent No.3 initiated the impugned proceedings basing upon certain complaints made by the people of Aziz Nagar Village stating that huge extents of Government lands situated in Sy.Nos.176, 177, 49 and 135 of Aziz Nagar Village were assigned to eligible weaker section people during the year 1961 and all such lands were purchased by rich people from Hyderabad. From the said order, it is also evident that respondent No.1 through letter No.LP1/301/2001, dated 30.08.2001, communicated the list of unauthorized occupants over the Government lands and required respondent No.3 to take action in the matter. Thus, respondent No.3 appears to have initiated proceedings in respect of the lands situated in Sy.Nos.176 and 177 and other survey numbers of Aziz Nagar Village. From the said order, it is evident that the petitioner has raised an objection against the initiation of the impugned proceedings specifically contending that there is nothing to show that the subject land is a Government land or assigned land at any point of time and the relevant objection raised by the petitioner as noted in the order, dated 28.02.2002, reads as under:- “Smt. Kanta Nagpal has also submitted a petition on 31.12.2001 stating that she purchased lands in Sy.No.177/4, 5 and 27 through a registered sale deed. In this case the then Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluk issued permission for alienation u/s. 47 & 48 of AP (AT) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950 in his D.Dis.A4/546/66 dt.24.05.66. In this case the then Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluk issued permission for alienation u/s. 47 & 48 of AP (AT) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950 in his D.Dis.A4/546/66 dt.24.05.66. The Revenue Records of 1954 does not indicate that the land in question is a Government land or assigned land and requested to furnish the record on which the present Revenue authorities relying on to state that it is an assigned land, and in absence of such material she requested the MRO to stop eviction proceedings. She enclosed a copy of Khasra Pahani along with the copies of other documents.” 6. Respondent No.3, while dealing with the nature of the lands situated in Sy.No.177, observed in the order, dated 28.02.2002, as under:- “As could be seen from the pahanies of Azeeznagar (V) for the Fasli 1345 & 1346 there were only 148 survey numbers. As such it is evident that Sy.No.177 was brought from other village along with some other lands subsequent to F 1345. As per setwar the land in Sy.No.177 divided into 39 sub-divisions, no names were recorded but the 39th sub-division, let as Government poramboke. The Khasra Pahani of 1951-55 states that 38 sub-divisions were allotted to local weaker section sivaijamadars leaving the 39th as Government land. No other record is available to know under which rules such allotments were made. Nobody having any clinching evidence to this effect. All most all the allottees have already alienated these lands long back.” Respondent No.3 having observed as above, resumed the entire land in Sy.No.177 admeasuring Acs.162.08 gts., holding that any person acquiring the assigned lands knowingly or unknowingly is illegal. As already noted above, the crucial objection that was raised by the petitioner about the nature of the land and also about absence of any record to show that the subject land was assigned at any point of time, respondent No.3 failed to answer the said objection in the order, dated 28.02.2002. On the other hand, recorded a finding that no record is available to know under which rules such allotments were made and nobody is having any clinching evidence to this effect. 7. On the other hand, recorded a finding that no record is available to know under which rules such allotments were made and nobody is having any clinching evidence to this effect. 7. It is settled law that the authority initiating proceedings under Section 3 of the Act, 1977, while issuing notices under form (I) and (II) is under obligation to state as to the nature of assignment, the date of assignment and the particulars and descriptions of the land etc., so as to establish that the subject land was assigned subject to condition of non-alienation mentioning all such details is held to be mandatory especially in the context of the fact that the provisions of the Act, 1977, would apply only in the event, the land was assigned subject to condition of non-alienation and such assigned land fall within the definition of assigned land as defined under sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the Act, 1977, which reads as under:- “(1) “assigned land” means [lands or house sites assigned] by the Government to the [landless or homeless 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 or homeless poor persons] under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to land ceilings; and the word "assigned" shall be construed accordingly;” 8. From the order, dated 28.02.2002, passed by respondent No.3, there is nothing to indicate that the subject land was assigned in favour of the original pattadars subject to condition of non-alienation and also failed to state the date on which the same was assigned, though a vague observation is made that the subject land was assigned in the year 1961, there is no specific reference made to any such proceedings. 9. This Court in the case of Dasari Narayana Rao and another v. Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally, R.R. District, 2010 (6) ALD 536, held as under:- “In the light of the petitioner’s categorical assertions above, it was incumbent on the respondents to record a conclusion that the land in question was an assigned land within the meaning of the expression as defined in the 1977 Act. Such a conclusion on a jurisdictional fact is a condition precedent for exercise of jurisdiction under the 1977 Act. Such a conclusion on a jurisdictional fact is a condition precedent for exercise of jurisdiction under the 1977 Act. As the respondents are Tribunals of a limited jurisdiction, their jurisdiction is defined by the existence of the jurisdictional fact viz., alienation of assigned land which is declared void under the provisions of the 1977 Act. As we have noticed, the show-cause notice dated 16.2.2002 is wholly laconic and hopelessly devoid of any factual assertions which would enable a rational response by the petitioners. The show cause notice does not state who the original assignee is; does not specify the date of the deed of assignment; does not assert that the deed of assignment incorporated a clause prohibiting alienation, with or without a condition and that therefore the petitioners possession of the land under a registered sale deed executed by such original assignee is illegal as the sale itself is void under the provisions of the 1977 Act. The 1st respondent was required, as the primary authority to have first dealt with, adjudicated and then recorded a finding on the existence of the jurisdictional fact (of the land in question being ‘assigned land’). Such conclusion was required to be arrived at by the 1st respondent on the basis of credible and preponderating oral or documentary evidence. In any event since the assignment was not subsequent to the coming into force of the 1977 Act but presumably prior thereto, the 1st respondent was required to first conclude that the land was ‘assigned land’ as defined in the 1977 Act before proceeding to adjudicate whether there was a transgression of the provisions of Sec.3 of the 1977 Act. In any event since the assignment was not subsequent to the coming into force of the 1977 Act but presumably prior thereto, the 1st respondent was required to first conclude that the land was ‘assigned land’ as defined in the 1977 Act before proceeding to adjudicate whether there was a transgression of the provisions of Sec.3 of the 1977 Act. In the light of the above principles as to the jurisdictional limits of a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction, it is clear that a correct conclusion as to the land in the possession of the petitioners being ‘assigned land’ (as this expression is defined in Section 2(1) of the 1977 Act); and the such conclusion arrived at on the basis of the evidence on record; such evidence having been recorded after due opportunity to the aggrieved petitioners, is a condition precedent to the exercise of power under Section 4(1) of the Act.” In yet another decision in the case of V. Subbayamma v. Joint Collector, Additional District Magistrate, Guntur and others, 2013 (6) ALD 46 , this Court held as under:- “From the definition of the assigned land, it is evident that it is not every assigned land which falls under the provisions of the Act. To attract the provisions of the Act, the land must be an assigned land and such an assignment must have been made subject to the condition of non-alienation or transfer to landless poor persons under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to land ceilings. Certain exceptions in favour of Central Government or State Government or any local authority or Co-Operative Societies have been made, reference to which is not necessary for the purpose of this case. A proceeding 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 exist, namely, that the land must be an assigned land; that the assignment contains a clause prohibiting alienation; 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. Unless these requirements are satisfied, the competent authority cannot exercise the jurisdiction. In my opinion, the initial burden lies on the competent authority under Section 4 of the Act to prove that the land was transferred in violation of the conditions of assignment/allotment. Unless this burden is discharged based on the relevant material, the order of resumption cannot be sustained in law.” 10. Thus, in the absence of respondent No.3, prima facie, concluding that the subject land was assigned subject to condition of non-alienation, any action initiated under the provisions of the Act, 1977 are bound to be declared as without jurisdiction. 11. It is also necessary to notice that respondent No.3 himself observed in the order that the land in Sy.No.177 was divided into 39 sub-divisions and 39th sub-division alone was noted as ‘Government Poramboke’ in Khasra Pahani of the year 1951-55. The impugned proceedings were initiated in respect of the sub-division Nos.177/1 to 177/38 by treating the same as Government land. If the Khasra Pahani itself does not indicate that the subject land situated in Sy.Nos.177/4, 177/5 and 177/27 as Government land, it is not understandable as to how respondent No.3 can treat the same as Government land and to say that the same was assigned in favour of the landless poor at any point of time. The only basis for respondent No.3 to treat the subject land as assigned land appears to be the entries that were made in the Pahanies during 1980's showing the same as Lavoni patta. Merely because the land is shown as Lavoni patta, the same would not result in satisfying the definition of the assigned land, as defined under sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act, 1977, unless such assignment was with a condition of non-alienation. Thus, it is evident that respondent No.3 has not recorded any specific finding that the subject land was assigned at any point of time or to the affect that the same was assigned subject to condition of non-alienation. Even assuming that the subject land was assigned, and such assignment was prior to the year 1958, the same may not satisfy the definition of assigned land, all such assignments that were made prior to issuance of new policy under G.O.Ms.No.1406, dated 25.07.1958, were under the Laoni Rules, 1950 (for short ‘the Rules, 1950’), without any condition of non-alienation. Even assuming that the subject land was assigned, and such assignment was prior to the year 1958, the same may not satisfy the definition of assigned land, all such assignments that were made prior to issuance of new policy under G.O.Ms.No.1406, dated 25.07.1958, were under the Laoni Rules, 1950 (for short ‘the Rules, 1950’), without any condition of non-alienation. From the material placed on record, especially a copy of the Khasra Pahani filed at page No.56 of the Writ papers, it is noticed that the names of the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner herein who are referred as original pattadars in this order are very much shown as pattadars. If the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner were shown as pattadars in the Khasra Pahani itself i.e. in the year 1954-55 much prior to 1958, even assuming that the subject land was assigned in their favour, the same is obviously without a condition of non-alienation. Therefore, the question of application of the provisions of the Act, 1977, does not arise. 12. When the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2-Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 4A of the Act, 1977, against the order, dated 28.02.2002, passed by respondent No.3, respondent No.2 without adverting to the specific contentions raised by the petitioner on the nature of the land, passed an order, dated 24.09.2007, on an assumption that the subject land was assigned to various landless poor persons in the year 1961 and that the petitioner herein purchased the same in contravention of the provisions of the Act, 1977. Respondent No.2 also observed that in the sethwar and classer register the subject lands were classified as Government in the names of the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner and in the Khasra Pahani the subject land was shown as Kotha Kancha patta. The said observations made by respondent No.2 are contrary to the record and contrary to the entries that are available in the Khasra Pahani that is filed before this Court. 13. So also, respondent No.1-Revisional Authority, while passing the order, dated 04.02.2009, failed to meet the specific grounds raised by the petitioner, but passed the impugned order on an assumption that the subject land was assigned in the year 1961 and that the petitioner purchased the same in contravention of the provisions of the Act, 1977. 13. So also, respondent No.1-Revisional Authority, while passing the order, dated 04.02.2009, failed to meet the specific grounds raised by the petitioner, but passed the impugned order on an assumption that the subject land was assigned in the year 1961 and that the petitioner purchased the same in contravention of the provisions of the Act, 1977. In this connection, it is necessary to note the specific objection raised by the petitioner before respondent No.1 at ground No.15, which reads as under:- “That the Revision petitioner submit that neither the Tahsildar nor Revenue Divisional Officer has no record to show in which year the assignment was made. The Tahsildar, Moinabad Mandal stated that the assignment was made in 1961 whereas the Wasool baki and sethwar shows that the predecessor of the revision petitioner become pattadars during the year 1949 itself. Therefore the Sy.No.177 is not Government land will not come under the A.P. Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977. As such the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division dt.24-09-2006 is liable to be set aside.” 14. In spite of raising such a crucial objection which goes to the root of the matter, respondent No.1 failed to give any particulars of the alleged assignment of the subject land in favour of the landless poor. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the present Writ Petition a specific ground is raised in this regard, but in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents also they failed to advert to the same nor any such particulars of assignment are furnished even before this Court. In the absence of any such conclusive finding recorded by respondent Nos.1 to 3 establishing that the subject land was assigned with a condition of non-alienation in favour of the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner herein, the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 cannot be sustained under law. Surprisingly the respondents failed even to name the alleged original assignees for the reasons best known to them. 15. As already noted above, the proceedings under the Act, 1977, were initiated in respect of Sy.Nos.176 and 177 and other survey numbers of Aziz Nagar Village on the instructions of respondent No.1. Surprisingly the respondents failed even to name the alleged original assignees for the reasons best known to them. 15. As already noted above, the proceedings under the Act, 1977, were initiated in respect of Sy.Nos.176 and 177 and other survey numbers of Aziz Nagar Village on the instructions of respondent No.1. Under similar circumstances, when proceedings were initiated in respect of the land situated in Sy.No.176 resulting in passing of an order in proceedings No.B/1250/2001, dated 08.02.2002, on the same lines as that of the order, dated 28.02.2002, passed by respondent No.3, the same came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.2649 of 2010 and 21088 of 2012 and the learned Single Judge of this Court by following various decisions rendered by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court found fault with initiation of such proceedings after a long lapse of 25 years from the date of alleged alienation that too without deciding the validity of the initial alienation of the land in the year 1966 and allowed the said Writ Petitions by an order, dated 01.02.2017. The Writ Appeal filed thereagainst in Writ Appeal Nos.1509 and 1510 of 2017 were also came to be dismissed by a learned Division Bench of this Court by an order, dated 30.12.2020, wherein the learned Division Bench of this Court observed as under:- “As borne out from the record, the original purchasers from the assignees in the year 1966 and subsequent purchasers have not been issued notices. The petitioners, who purchased in the year 1966-67, are alleged to have violated the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. Unless it is clear that initial sale in the year 1966 is contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, an automatic conclusion cannot be drawn that subsequent sales made in the year 1996-97 are hit by the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. The violation, if any, is not by the sale deed executed in the year 1996-97. In fact, the violation, if any, was under the sale deeds executed in the year 1965/1966. Initiation of resumption proceedings against the petitioners without issuing notices to the original purchasers of assigned lands in the year 1965/1966 is arbitrary and unsustainable. The violation, if any, is not by the sale deed executed in the year 1996-97. In fact, the violation, if any, was under the sale deeds executed in the year 1965/1966. Initiation of resumption proceedings against the petitioners without issuing notices to the original purchasers of assigned lands in the year 1965/1966 is arbitrary and unsustainable. Even if the initial violation is taken from the year 1965/1966, it is almost after more than thirty-five years the resumption proceedings were issued. Hence, the resumption orders, 9 having been passed thirtyfive years from the date of first set of transactions in the year 1966, are arbitrary. This Court in Dasari Narayana Rao V. Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally, R.R. District [ 2010 (4) ALT 655 ] held that the resumption order passed without considering the assignment patta and conditions therein is illegal and void. The argument of the learned Government Pleader that the lands are, admittedly, assigned lands and after G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958 came into force, non-alienation was a condition precedent for assignment of lands and thus, purchase of lands by the petitioners is in violation of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 is untenable since the resumption proceedings, if any, were to be issued, the same could be done only after issuing prior notice to all the purchasers of the land right from the year 1965/1966. Admittedly, the title of the land has changed several hands and original purchasers in the year 1965/1966 have not been put on notice. So also there is no material to show that the petitioners were put on notice; thus, the proceedings impugned is illegal and arbitrary.” 16. The said decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court as well as the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court applies to the facts of the case on hand, as the basis for initiating the proceedings in both the cases is one and the same and the nature of proceedings are also identical in nature. In the said case also the alleged assignment was of the year 1961 as claimed in the instant case, and first alienation was in the year 1966. 17. In the said case also the alleged assignment was of the year 1961 as claimed in the instant case, and first alienation was in the year 1966. 17. Before parting with the case, it is also necessary to note that the impugned proceedings were initiated by respondent No.3 on the instructions of respondent No.1 who is the Revisional Authority as is evident from the order, dated 28.02.2002 passed by respondent No.3, which is yet another grave irregularity. Perhaps, because of the same, respondent No.3, though could not firmly say about the exact date and nature of alleged assignment or at least the names of the alleged assignees, passed order, dated 28.02.2002, resuming the land in question. For this reason also, the impugned orders are unsustainable. 18. In the light of the above, the impugned orders dated 04.02.2009 passed by respondent No.1 confirming the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 dated 24.09.2007 and 28.02.2002 respectively are liable to be quashed, accordingly they are quashed insofar as the land which is the subject matter of this Writ Petition is concerned and the Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. No costs.