ORDER : (J. Sreenivas Rao, J.) In both the writ petitions the subject property claimed by the petitioners is one and the same. In view of the same, both the writ petitions are clubbed together and passed the following common order. 2. W.P.No.7524 of 2016 is filed seeking the following relief: “….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 3rd and 4th respondents in trying to dispossess the members of petitioner’s Association from their respective house plots bearing No.3, 4, 9, 15, 16, 21, 22, 26, 36, 37, 45, 46, 50, 55, 57, 58, 62, 63, 65, 66, 69, 71, 72, 73, 76, 85, 86, 94, 95, 96, 107 and 115 situated in Survey Nos 64/6 and 64/7 of Pedda Amberpet Revenue Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without having any right, authority and without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary, against to law and procedure and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India...”. 2.1. W.P.No.36588 of 2018 is filed seeking the following relief: “….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings No.C/1362/2009 dated 04.12.2009 passed by the 3rd respondent under PoT Act in respect of the land in Survey Nos.64/6 and 64/7 of Pedda Amberpet Revenue Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District belonging to the members of petitioners association as illegal, arbitrary, against to law and procedure and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in Survey Nos.64/6 and 64/7 of Pedda Amberpet Revenue Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District belonging to the members of the petitioners association”. 3. Heard Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner Association registered under the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001, vide Registration No.1281 of 2010 dated 16.11.2010 with an object to protect the rights and interest of the plot owners and to develop the residential colony. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner Association registered under the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001, vide Registration No.1281 of 2010 dated 16.11.2010 with an object to protect the rights and interest of the plot owners and to develop the residential colony. He submits that these two writ petitions are filed to safeguard the rights of 33 plot owners vide plot bearing Nos.3, 4, 9, 15, 16, 21, 22, 26, 36, 37, 45, 46, 50, 55, 57, 58, 62, 63, 65, 66, 69, 71, 72, 73, 76, 85, 86, 94, 95, 96, 107 and 115 covered in Sy.Nos.64/6 and 64/7 of Pedda Amberpet Revenue Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from the original owners through registered sale deeds for the years from 1983 to 1987 by paying valuable sale consideration and since then the members of the petitioner Association have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property with absolute rights and some of the members have constructed houses after obtaining necessary permissions from the concerned Gram Panchayat and they are residing in the said houses. While things stood thus, respondent Nos.2 to 4 in W.P.No.7524 of 2016 are trying to dispossess the members of the petitioner Association from the subject property. The petitioner Association approached this Court and filed writ petition. 4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the said writ petition, respondent No.3 filed counter contending that the subject land claimed by the members of the petitioner Association is a Government assigned land and respondent No.3 exercising the powers conferred under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, the Act’) passed the resumption order vide proceedings No.C/1362/2009 dated 04.12.2009 to an extent of Ac.4.37 gts. in Sy.No.64/7 and the subject property claimed by the members of the petitioner Association was also included in the subject property. Immediately after came to know about the same, the petitioners Association filed W.P.No.36588 of 2018 questioning the resumption order passed by respondent No.3 insofar as to the extent of property. 4.2. in Sy.No.64/7 and the subject property claimed by the members of the petitioner Association was also included in the subject property. Immediately after came to know about the same, the petitioners Association filed W.P.No.36588 of 2018 questioning the resumption order passed by respondent No.3 insofar as to the extent of property. 4.2. Learned counsel vehemently contended that respondent No.3 without issuing any notice as required under Rule 3 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 1977 as well as amended Rules, 2007 (for short, ‘the Rules’) passed the resumption order behind back of the members of the petitioner Association and admittedly the members have purchased the property through registered sale deeds from 1983 to 1987. He further contended that the subject land is not a government assignment land and it is a private patta land. Hence, the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is gross violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to law. 5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the subject land is a government assigned land. Respondent No.3 after following the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder rightly passed the resumption order on 04.12.2009. The petitioner Association without availing the remedy of appeal as provided under the provisions of the Act straightaway approached this Court and filed the present writ petition and the same is not maintainable under law and the petitioners are not entitled any relief, much less the relief sought in these writ petitions. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the members of the petitioner Association claiming the rights over the property in respect of plot bearing Nos.3, 4, 9, 15, 16, 21, 22, 26, 36, 37, 45, 46, 50, 55, 57, 58, 62, 63, 65, 66, 69, 71, 72, 73, 76, 85, 86, 94, 95, 96, 107 and 115 situated in Sy.Nos.64/6 and 64/7 of Pedda Amberpet Revenue Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, basing upon the registered sale deeds for the years from 1983 to 1987. It is very much relevant to place on record that respondent No.3 initiated proceedings exercising the powers conferred the under the provisions of the Act and issued Form-I notice on 05.11.2009 in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.4.37 gts. in Sy.No.64/7. It is very much relevant to place on record that respondent No.3 initiated proceedings exercising the powers conferred the under the provisions of the Act and issued Form-I notice on 05.11.2009 in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.4.37 gts. in Sy.No.64/7. The specific claim of the petitioners as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader is that the property claimed by the petitioner Association was also included in the resumption order dated 04.12.2009. As on the date of initiation of proceedings by respondent No.3, the members of the petitioner Association have purchased the property as stated supra through registered sale deeds from 1983 to 1987 and they are in possession of the said property. In such circumstances, respondent No.3 ought to have issued notices to the members of the petitioner Association under Rule 3 of Rules. It is very much relevant to extract Rule 3 of the Rules, which reads as follows: Procedure for eviction of the Transferee and taking possession and restoration of Assigned Lands:- The District Collector or the Authorised Officer shall, before taking action under clauses (a) and (b) sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, issue notices in Form No.1 and Form II to the persons who have transferred and also to the persons who have acquired any assigned land in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. 7. In the case on hand, the members of the petitioner Association are claiming the rights over the respective plots in Sy.No.64/6 and 64/7 basing upon registered documents. In such circumstances, respondent No.3 ought to have issued notice to them. Respondent No.3 without issuing notice as required under Rule 3 of the Rules as stated supra, passed the resumption order dated 04.12.2009 and the same is gross violation of the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the provisions of the Act as well as Rules. 8. In such circumstances, respondent No.3 ought to have issued notice to them. Respondent No.3 without issuing notice as required under Rule 3 of the Rules as stated supra, passed the resumption order dated 04.12.2009 and the same is gross violation of the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the provisions of the Act as well as Rules. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 dated 04.12.2009 is set aside only to the extent of members of the petitioner Association in respect of plot bearing Nos.3, 4, 9, 15, 16, 21, 22, 26, 36, 37, 45, 46, 50, 55, 57, 58, 62, 63, 65, 66, 69, 71, 72, 73, 76, 85, 86, 94, 95, 96, 107 and 115 situated in Sy.Nos.64/6 and 64/7 of Pedda Amberpet Revenue Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, of members of petitioner Association. However, respondent No.3 is granted liberty to initiate the proceedings and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after giving notice and opportunity to the members of the petitioner Association including personal hearing, and till such time, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners’ properties, as mentioned supra. It is needless to observe that the plot owners are entitled to raise all the grounds which are available under law by submitting explanation. 9. With the above direction, both the writ petitions are disposed of, accordingly. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed.