ORDER
T. Bhaskar Rao, J.
1. These writ petitions are filed assailing the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer-2nd respondent herein cancelling the assignment of the petitioners and resuming the lands under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act No. IX of 1977).
2. The case of the petitioners is that the lands in their possession were originally assigned to the assignees on payment of market value and granted ‘D’ form pattas to the assignees. Thereafter the assignees sold their lands to the third parties including (that of) the present petitioners. The M.R.O., 2nd respondent herein noticing that the lands were transferred by the original assignees in favour of the petitioners, issued a show-cause notice stating why the assignments should not be cancelled as the assignees have violated the provisions of Section 3 of Act IX of 1977. It is the case of the petitioners that the assignees have purchased the land from the Government on payment of market value who in turn sold their lands to the petitioners on payment of market value only. Further, it is their case that the note appended to Condition No. 1 in ‘D’ form patta postulates that non-alienation is not a bar if the assignment was made on collection of market value. During the months of June and July, 1989 the Mandal Revenue Officer issued notices alleging that the transaction between the petitioners and the assignees is in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 of Act IX of 1977, for which the petitioners submitted their explanation stating that the Act has no application to the assignments made to the assignees as per para 1(8) of G.O.Ms.No.1142 dated 18-6-1954 as the assignment was made only on payment of market value. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they submitted explanation bringing to the notice of Mandal Revenue Officer certain material facts, the M.R.O., passed the impugned orders which are contrary to law. Hence they filed these writ petitions.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that Act No. IX of 1977 will not apply to the lands assigned on payment of market value as the note appended to Condition No. l of ‘D’ form patta makes it amply clear that the bar of alienation does not apply to the lands assigned on payment of market value; therefore, the assignments cannot be cancelled by applying the provisions of Act No. IX of 1977.
4. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents, that once the assigned lands are alienated, it comes within the purview of the provisions of Act No. IX of 1977 and therefore the authorities have a right to cancel the assignments.
5. In view of the rival contentions put forth, it is imperative to find out whether the lands assigned on payment of market value prescribed any condition that non-alienation will not apply to the cases where the lands are assigned on payment of market value and Act No.IX of 1977 will not apply to the assignees of the lands in question?
6. To appreciate the above requirements, it would be relevant to read certain provisions of the Act there. Section 2(1) defines “assigned land” which reads:
“assigned land means lands assigned by the Government to the landless poor persons under the rules for the time being in force, subject to the 25 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.”
Section 3 prohibits transfer of assigned lands; Section 4 provides consequences of breach of provisions of Section 3, empowering the person authorised by the Collector to take action for resumption of the land, Section 4-A provides for appeal and Section 4-B provides for revision; Section 5 provides prohibition of registration of assigned lands; Section 7 provides for penalty and Section 9 deals with powers to make rules by the Government.
7. By reading the above provisions, it is apparently clear that the scheme of the Act is to prohibit alienation of assigned lands except those on payment of market value because the whole idea of the Act is to make free gift of the lands to the landless poor persons, whereas the lands were originally assigned to the assignees as per G.O.Ms. No. 1142 dated 1-6-1954 on payment of market value under unavoidable circumstances. Further the definition of ‘assigned land’ makes it clear that lands assigned to the landless 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. From the above, it has to be construed that if there is a condition of non-alienation while assigning the lands or the land is assigned under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, then only it is deemed as assigned land under Act No.IX of 1977. In the case on hand, there is no condition barring alienation of lands. On the other hand the note appended to Condition No. 1 of ‘D’ form patta specifically says that “this condition will not apply to cases of assignment made on collection of market value under para 1(8) of G.O.Ms. No. 1142 of 18-6-1954”. By that condition, it is evident that there is no bar for alienation of lands. Therefore,itcannotbesaidthatthelandsareassignedlands. When the lands are not assigned lands, the Act No. IX of 1977 has no applicability to the assignments made to the assignees. In Ravuri Tulisamma v. Mandal Revenue Officer, 1991 (1) An.W.R. 533 a learned single Judge of this Court held that cancellation of assignment of land and grant of ‘D’ form patta on receiving consideration, on the ground of alienation, is illegal.
8. For the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that the Mandal Revenue Officer- 2nd respondent herein, has no authority to deal with the lands in question under Act No.IX of 1977. Hence the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and accordingly they are quashed.
9. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. But in the circumstances of the case without costs.