( 1 ) THIS writ petition is referred to the Division Bench tor deciding the issue whether a member of joint Hindu family can be considered as landless poor person under A. P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) act, (Act No. IX of 1977 ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner purchased the land from an assignee and the tahsildar passed the impugned order holding that the petitioner is not a landless poor person as he owns ac. 3. 40 cents of wet and 0. 02 cents of dry land and as such the sale is hit by Sec. 3 (1) of the Act. The plea of the petitioner is that he and his two minor sons constitute joint family and his share cf land is below the permissible limit and as such the sale in his favour is valid.-

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a member of the joint family and if a national partition in the family is taken into consideration his share is with in the prescribed limit. The learned Government Pleader contends that the concept of notional partition cannot be introduced and the rule is hit by Section 3.

( 4 ) SECTION 3 of the Act prohibits sale of land by the assignee to any person and the sale is saved if the purchaser is a landless poor person and the sale is bona fide. The "landless poor Person" is defined in Section 2 (3) of the Act as hereunder :. "landless poor person means a person who owns an extent of land, not more than 1. 011715 hectares (two and half acres) of wet land or 2. 023430 hectares (five acres) of dry land or such other extent of land as has been or may be specified by the Government in this behalf from time to time and who has no other means of livelihood". The landless poor person has to be identified with reference to the holding of land and if a purchaser owns the land within the limit specified in the definition and has no other means of livelihood the sale is rescued from the bite of Section 3. The plea of the petitioner that the joint family consisted of himself and two minor sons own the land and that he has no other means of livelihood is not doubted. Further it is not brought out that the purchase is effected on behalf of the joint family. Therefore the purchase is by the petitioner in his individual capacity without reference to the joint family. For computing the holding of the petitioner his undivided interest in the coparcenary property falls for consideration as the other members of the family are also having undivided interest in accordance with their shares. In view of the subsistence of the joint family it cannot be said that the petitioner is the owner of the entire propsrties and though a specific property cannot be delienated the extent of his undivided share can be ascertained. For computing the extent of the undivided interest the concept of notional partition comes in. The extent of land owned by the petitioner is the share he would have got if the partition of the joint family is effected. The joint family comprises the petitioner and his two minors and by invoking the concept of notional partition the petitioner holds less than the permissible limit envisaged under the definition and he has to be considered as a land-less poor person.

( 5 ) THE impugned order is quashed. Writ petition allowed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150/ -.