JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, CJ. Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel represents Mr. Rama Rao Vudataneni, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Muralidhar Rao Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 2. This intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.06.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge by which W.P.No.20488 of 2016 preferred by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that the appellant has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 4-A of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1977 Act”). 3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal in nutshell are that one Tulsi Yellaiah was the pattadar in respect of the land measuring Acs.2.12 guntas in Sy.No.88 of Nizampet Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy district (hereinafter referred to as “the subject land”). After the Tulsi Yellaiah’s death, the subject land devolved on his wife, namely, Tulsi Veeramma, who executed a registered General Power of Attorney on 07.10.1992 in favour of one G. Latchi Raju. The subject land was alienated by a sale deed on 09.10.1992, which was executed by the said Tulsi Veeramma. Thereafter, the subject land was sold and the sale deed was executed by late Tulsi Veeramma through her General Power of Attorney. 4. The Deputy Collector and Tahsildar (hereinafter referred to as “the competent authority”) has issued notice dated 04.07.2005 to the appellant and Tulsi Vellamma in Form-I under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 on the ground that the subject land has been transferred in contravention of the 1977 Act and sought explanation as to why they should not be evicted from the subject land. 5. The appellant thereupon filed W.P.No.17415 of 2005 in which validity of the aforesaid notice dated 04.07.2005 issued by the competent authority under the 1977 Act was challenged. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 17.08.2005 with the liberty to the appellant to submit his explanation to the notice dated 04.07.2005 as well as to seek necessary information and documents from the authorities concerned to defend himself. 6. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 17.08.2005 with the liberty to the appellant to submit his explanation to the notice dated 04.07.2005 as well as to seek necessary information and documents from the authorities concerned to defend himself. 6. The appellant on 24.08.2005 submitted a preliminary reply explaining his title over the subject land and requested the competent authority to issue a copy of the proceedings of patta certificate issued in favour of Tulsi Yellaiah to enable him to submit his final explanation. According to the appellant, when the respondents threatened to dispossess him, he filed W.P.No.4156 of 2006. A Bench of this Court by an order dated 06.03.2006 disposed of the aforesaid writ petition. While doing so, the Bench of this Court recorded the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that efforts are being made to trace out the original assignment file No.A3/6170/60 and necessary orders will be passed after following the due process of law. 7. Thereafter, a memo dated 24.03.2016 was issued to the appellant by which he was informed that despite a thorough search in the competent authority’s office, the assignment file has not been traced out and the copy of patta certificate has not been issued to the appellant. The appellant was required to submit his further explanation within a period of 7 days. Thereafter, by an order dated 04.04.2016, an order of resumption of the subject land was passed by the competent authority. The possession of the subject land was taken under the cover of panchanama dated 06.04.2016. According to the appellant, he continued to be in possession of the subject land. 8. Thereafter, the appellant got issued notice dated 28.05.2016 to the competent authority and thereafter filed W.P.No.20488 of 2016 in which challenge was made to the validity of the order dated 04.04.2016 resuming the subject land inter alia on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction and it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the appellant was not heard before the aforesaid order was passed. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 28.06.2016 dismissed the writ petition. However, liberty was reserved to the appellant to take recourse to the remedy of appeal as provided under Section 4-A of the 1977 Act. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 28.06.2016 dismissed the writ petition. However, liberty was reserved to the appellant to take recourse to the remedy of appeal as provided under Section 4-A of the 1977 Act. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant while inviting the attention of this Court to order dated 04.04.2016 has submitted that the competent authority did not ascertain the jurisdictional fact whether or not the subject land is an assigned land within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the 1977 Act. Therefore, the order dated 04.04.2016 is without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellant before passing the order dated 04.04.2016. It is also submitted that the notice issued to the appellant seeking resumption of the subject land is vague and does not even contain the date of assignment as well as the particulars of the assignment. It is urged that the order of resumption cannot be permitted to be supported by assigning reasons in an affidavit in the proceedings before the Court of law. 10. It is contended that since the impugned order of resumption was without jurisdiction and no opportunity of hearing was afforded, the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the appellant cannot be relegated to an alternative remedy of appeal. Lastly, it is urged that the impugned order of resumption be set aside and the matter be remitted to the competent authority for adjudication afresh. 11. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in A. Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat vs. Nori Venkatarama Deekshithulu 1991 Supp (2) SCC 228, Shrisht Dhawan vs. M/s. Shaw Brothers (1992) 1 SCC 534 and Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405 and a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Dasari Narayana Rao vs. Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampalli, Ranga Reddy District, 2010 (6) ALD 536. 12. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Revenue has invited the attention of this Court to the stand taken in the counter affidavit and has submitted that the assignment was sanctioned in the year 1964-65 and the lands which were assigned after commencement of revised assignment policy are not alienable. 12. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Revenue has invited the attention of this Court to the stand taken in the counter affidavit and has submitted that the assignment was sanctioned in the year 1964-65 and the lands which were assigned after commencement of revised assignment policy are not alienable. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge in the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly relegated the appellant to the alternative remedy of appeal and the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference in this intra court appeal. 13. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. 14. The jurisdiction of the appeal created under the 1977 Act depends on fulfillment of the condition precedent and on existence of a particular fact whether or not the subject land is an assigned land. 15. Section 2(1) of the 1977 Act defines the expression “assigned land”, which reads as follows: ““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 poor persons under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to land ceilings; and the word “assigned” shall be construed accordingly. Explanation: - A mortgage in favour of the following shall not be regarded as an alienation, namely: - (i) the Central Government, or the State Government or any local authority: (ii) any co-operative society registered or deemed to be registered under the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964; and (iii) any bank which includes, - (a) the Agricultural Development Bank; (b) the Reserve Bank of India constituted under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; (c) the State Bank of India constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955; (d) a subsidiary bank as defined in the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959; and (e) a corresponding new bank constituted under Section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970.” 16. Thus, the existence of an assigned land is a sine qua non for exercise of jurisdiction by the competent authority under the 1977 Act. Thus, the existence of an assigned land is a sine qua non for exercise of jurisdiction by the competent authority under the 1977 Act. Therefore, the competent authority under the 1977 Act while invoking the jurisdiction is required to satisfy itself with regard to existence of a jurisdictional fact. 17. The show cause notice issued under the 1977 Act also must contain the details about the original assignee as well as the deed of assignment so as to enable a person to respond effectively to the initiation of notice under the 1977 Act. 18. In the instant case, from a perusal of the show cause notice it is evident that the same is laconic and it neither states about the particulars of the original assignee nor does it specify the details of deed of assignment. The show cause notice also does not contain the recital that the deed of assignment incorporates clause prohibiting alienation. The appellant thereupon asked the respondents to supply a copy of patta certificate so that he could submit the explanation. However, instead of supplying the copy of the patta certificate, by an order dated 04.04.2016, the order of resumption of the subject land was passed by the competent authority. 19. From a perusal of the aforesaid order, it is evident that no finding has been recorded by the competent authority that the subject land is an assigned land. In the absence of determination of the jurisdictional fact i.e., existence of assigned land within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the 1977 Act, the competent authority has no jurisdiction to proceed further in the matter. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the order of resumption dated 04.04.2016 is without jurisdiction. It is also pertinent to note that after the submission of the preliminary reply by the appellant on 24.08.2005, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, straightaway the order of resumption was passed on 04.04.2016. Therefore, there has been violation of principles of natural justice as well. 20. Therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar to entertain the writ petition in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1 and Harbans Lal Sahnia vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (2003) 2 SCC 107 . 21. 21. In view of the preceding analysis, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the same is quashed and the matter is remitted to the competent authority under the 1977 Act. The competent authority shall issue a show cause notice containing the details of the original assignee as well as the deed of assignment and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 22. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.