ORDER : K. SARATH, J. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.4 in passing the order in Proc.B/8024/16, dated 30.11.2016 as confirmed by the respondent Nos.3 and 2 in Appeal No.D2/4938/2016, dated 06.05.2017 and Revision Case No.F2/1810/2017, dated 25.11.2017 respectively, directing to resume the assigned agricultural land of the petitioner admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.671 (671/36) situated at Suryapet Village and Mandal, Suryapet District as arbitrary and illegal and requested to set aside the impugned orders. 2. Heard Sri Pasham Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohd. Habeebuddin, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government has assigned the land admeasuring to an Ac.1-00 in Sy.No.671(671/36) situated at Suryapet Village and Mandal, Suryapet District favour of the petitioner and issued patta certificate vide proceedings No.B4/262/75 dated .07.1975 and since then, he was cultivating the land by raising red gram, Jowar etc. His name was mutated in the revenue records, pattadar passbook and title deed were issued in the year, 1994. While it being so, after a lapse of 41 years of assignment, the respondent No.4-Tahsildar issued notice dated 04.10.2016 stating that the petitioner has kept the subject land fallow in violation of the provisions of Section 4 of Telangana Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 20.11.2016 along with the relevant documents. The respondent No.4 without considering his explanation and the said documents has passed the impugned order in Proc.No.B/8024/16 dated 30.11.2016 for resumption of the assigned agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.671 (671/36) situated at Suryapet Village and Mandal, Suryapet District from the petitioner on the ground of violation under Section 3 of the Telangana Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer and the same was dismissed vide Appeal No.D2/4938/2016 dated 06.05.2017, against which the petitioner filed revision and the same was also dismissed in Revision Case No.F2/1810/2017 dated 25.11.2017. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner cultivated the subject land for the last 19 years, as such the land cannot be resumed on the vague allegation that the land kept fallow. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner cultivated the subject land for the last 19 years, as such the land cannot be resumed on the vague allegation that the land kept fallow. The impugned orders were passed without considering the procedure of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act, 1977), which is a social welfare legislation. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the pahanies for the years 1997-98 to 2013- 14, to which the respondents are referring, cannot be taken into consideration since the assignment was done in the year 1975, much prior to the said date as such the condition of within three years from the date of assignment of the land cannot be said as violated by the petitioner. The initiation of impugned action is purely with a view to avoid payment of compensation by acquiring the land and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment basing on the counter filed by the respondents would submit that the subject land was originally assigned to one Sri Nallamekala Bakkaiah in the year, 1975 under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.1406 Dt.25.07.1958 subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The Government has identified that the assigned land was not brought into cultivation by the assignee or any of the family members since the date of assignment which is in violation of conditions and as per the entries made in the pahanies of Suryapet Village from 1975 to till date, the subject land was recorded as ‘Padava’ i.e., left fallow, and in view of the same, notice was issued to the petitioner. After considering the explanation of the petitioner and after thorough enquiry, the respondent No.4 has passed resumption order on the ground that the subject land was never cultivated since the date of assignment and as per the said order, the subject land was taken over possession by the respondent No.4 under a cover of panchanama dated 01.12.2016 by evicting the petitioner. Subsequently, the said order of resumption was also confirmed by the respondent No.3 in Appeal No.D2/4938/2016 dated 06.05.2017 and the respondent No.2 in revision vide No.F2/1810/2017 dated 25.11.2017. Subsequently, the said order of resumption was also confirmed by the respondent No.3 in Appeal No.D2/4938/2016 dated 06.05.2017 and the respondent No.2 in revision vide No.F2/1810/2017 dated 25.11.2017. He further submits that the entries made in the pahani of Suryapet Village shows that the subject land was kept fallow since the date of assignment and never brought into cultivation. He further submits that the assignment patta was cancelled and the land was resumed on behalf of the Government and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 7. After hearing both sides and on pursuing the records, this Court is of the considered view that there is no dispute with regard to the assignment of subject land to the petitioner by the respondent authorities in the year, 1975. It is the contention of the petitioner that ever since the date of assignment, the petitioner was cultivating the land by raising red gram and jowar etc. While it being, the respondent authorities have issued notice to the petitioner on 04.10.2016 as to why the subject land cannot be resumed for keeping the land fallow. For which the petitioner submitted his reply on 20.11.2016, however, the respondent No.4 without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, only basing on the report of Mandal Girdawar, resumed the land on 19.12.2016. The petitioner aggrieved by the resumption orders, filed appeal vide Appeal No.D2/4938/2016 and the same was dismissed by the respondent No.3 on 06.05.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Revision vide Revision Case No.F2/1810/2017 and the same was also dismissed on 25.11.2017 by the respondent No.2. 8. On perusal of the impugned resumption proceedings vide Ref.No.B/8024/16, dated 19.12.2016 issued by the respondent No.4-Tahsildar, the sole ground is that the petitioner failed to bring the land into cultivation within three years from the date of assignment. In the counter, it was stated that the assigned land was not brought under cultivation within three years in violation of the conditions as per G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958. It clearly shows that the respondents want to acquire the land from the petitioner without paying compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. 9. In the counter, it was stated that the assigned land was not brought under cultivation within three years in violation of the conditions as per G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958. It clearly shows that the respondents want to acquire the land from the petitioner without paying compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. 9. The Assignees of the Government lands are entitled for payment of compensation equivalent to the full market value of the land and other benefits on par with full owners of the land even in cases where the assigned lands are taken possession of by the State in accordance with the terms of grant or patta, though such resumption is for a public purpose as held by larger Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer vs. Mekala Pandu , [ 2004 (2) ALT 546 ] and the facts of the said Judgment squarely apply to the instant case and the relevant portion of the said Judgment is as follows: “111. In the circumstances, we hold that the assignees of the government lands are entitled to payment of compensation equivalent to the full market value of the land and other benefits on par with full owners of the land even in cases where the assigned lands are taken possession of by the State in accordance with the terms of grant or patta, though such resumption is for a public purpose. We further hold that even in cases where the State does not invoke the covenant of the grant or patta to resume the land for such public purpose and resorts to acquisition of the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the assignees shall be entitled to compensation as owners of the land and for all other consequential benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. No condition incorporated in patta/deed of assignment shall operate as a clog putting any restriction on the right of the assignee to claim full compensation as owner of the land.” (Emphasis added) 10. Further, the power of resumption of assigned lands cannot be extended beyond reasonable period, in any event, not later than five to six years. No condition incorporated in patta/deed of assignment shall operate as a clog putting any restriction on the right of the assignee to claim full compensation as owner of the land.” (Emphasis added) 10. Further, the power of resumption of assigned lands cannot be extended beyond reasonable period, in any event, not later than five to six years. Even within five to six years when the power has to be exercised, there must be necessary inspection by the authorities on the basis of which a decision to resume the lands be taken preceding a notice to the parties concerned as held by this Court in B.Adinarayana Murthy v. Collector , [ 1999 (6) ALT 322 (SB)] and the relevant portion of the said Judgment is as follows: “18. On this ground alone, I must say, the power of resumption of assigned lands cannot be extended beyond a reasonable period, in any event, not later than five to six years. Even within five to six years when the power has to be exercised, there must be necessary inspection by the authorities on the basis of which a decision to resume the lands be taken preceding a notice to the parties concerned. Section 4 (1)(b) of the Act envisages that even if there is violation of certain terms and conditions by the assignee the land shall be restored to the assignee or his legal heirs as the case may be and if there is a violation of the terms of assignment for the second time, it would be open to the authorities to resume the lands. I have, therefore, no hesitation to say that the respondents have no authority to resume the lands after long lapse of more than 34 years on some flimsy grounds. The first question is answered accordingly.” 11. Further, this Court in Jinka Chendrayudu v. Joint Collector , 2011 (5) ALT 119 power to cancel D-Form Patta or resume the land by the Revenue authorities must be exercised within a reasonable time. The relevant potion of the said Judgment is extracted as under: “11. The first question is answered accordingly.” 11. Further, this Court in Jinka Chendrayudu v. Joint Collector , 2011 (5) ALT 119 power to cancel D-Form Patta or resume the land by the Revenue authorities must be exercised within a reasonable time. The relevant potion of the said Judgment is extracted as under: “11. Be that as it may, the petitioner claims that the land in question was assigned to him in the year 1976, and if according to respondent No.3, the land, as per the conditions of D-Form patta, was required to bring the land under cultivation within three years from the date of its issuance, and if the petitioner failed to bring the land under cultivation, within three years from the date of its issuance, then respondent No.3, ought to have issued notice calling upon him to show cause as to why the D-Form patta should not be cancelled, immediately after expiry of three years from the date of issuance of the D-Form patta, and instead of doing that, he has issued the show cause notice on 17.02.2005 i.e., after lapse of nearly 30 years. He further submitted that since respondent No.3 issued the show cause notice after lapse of nearly 30 years, it will not be possible to ascertain as to whether the land was brought under cultivation within three years from the date of issuance of D-Form patta or not. 12. This Court in Sekhari Aruna Kumari v. Dist. Collector, Visakhapatnam and Madamaneni Chinnaswamy (died) per LRs. v. Joint Collector, Chittoor, held that power to cancel the D-Form patta or resume the land, by the revenue authorities must be exercised within a reasonable time and that if D-Form patta was to be cancelled, the grounds on which it is sought to be cancelled have to stated, to enable the assignee to show cause. In the instant case, the D-Form patta was cancelled after lapse of 30 years, and the show cause notice issued in that regard, did not specify the ground on which the DKT was to be cancelled, and in fact, it is very clear from the proceedings as well as the record produced, the show cause notice, which led to passing of cancellation of D-Form patta granted in favour of the petitioner, is at the instance of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Merely because respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Merely because respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have been in possession of the land in question since several years, it is not open for them to seek cancellation of patta granted to some other person and seek assignment of the same in their favour.” (Emphasis added) 12 . In the instant case the subject land was assigned to the petitioner in the year, 1975. The respondents have issued the present impugned resumption orders on 19.12.2016 on the ground of violation of assignment conditions after 41 years. The findings of the above Judgments squarely apply to the facts of the instant case as this Court categorically held that after lapse of several years, the respondents have no authority to resume the lands on flimsy grounds. 13. In the instant case, the respondents resumed the land after a lapse of 41 years. In view of the same, the respondents have to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and pay compensation to the petitioner No.2, as held by the larger Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer v. Mekala Pandu (Supra-1). 14. In view of the above findings, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by the No.4 in proceedings in No.B/8024/16 dated 19.12.2016 and also the consequential orders passed by the respondent No.3 and 2 in Appeal No.D2/4938/2016 dated 06.05.2017 and Revision Case No.F2/1810/2017 dated 25.11.2017 respectively and the respondents are directed to initiate Land Acquisition proceedings by following the procedure as contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for payment of compensation to the petitioner for acquired land and complete the same within four (4) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and if the respondents want to acquire the remaining portion of land which was in possession of the petitioner, they are directed not to interfere with the said land without following due procedure. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.