The petitioners purchased a plot of 750 sq.yards in Sy.No.101/17 of Nagole Revenue Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, through sale deed dated 31-03-2010. They have traced the origin of title to the stage of a sale deed dated 19-10-1981, which, in turn was followed by two more sale deeds dated 16-05-1985 and 08-08-1990. Their vendor filed Writ Petition No.2966 of 2010, complaining that the respondents are trying to interfere with his possession. The writ petition was disposed of on 11-02-2010, directing that the respondents shall not interfere or otherwise dispossess the petitioner therein from the land, except by initiating the proceedings in accordance with law.

The petitioners state that after the W.P.No.2966 of 2010 was disposed of, the Tahsildar, Uppal Mandal, 3rd respondent herein, issued a notice dated 29-05-2010 to their vendor, under Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act 7 of 77), read with Rule 3 of the Rules, framed thereunder, requiring him to explain as to why the plot of 750 sq.yards in Sy.No.101/17 of Nagole Village, be not resumed. The vendor of the petitioners submitted a detailed representation on 24-06-2010, denying the allegation that the plot is part of any assigned land. It is stated that no orders have been passed thereon.

Even while those proceedings are pending, the 3rd respondent issued a notice dated 10-05-2012 to the petitioners, under Section 7 of the A.P Land Encroachment Act, 1905. However, the plot with the same description, was shown, to be part of land, in Sy.Nos.101/19 & 120 of Nagole Village. The petitioners submitted a detailed

explanation on 05-06-2012. Taking the same into account, the 3rd respondent passed an order dated 16-07-2012, directing their eviction. The said order is challenged in this writ petition.

The petitioners contend that the 3rd respondent is not clear as to whether he is passing orders, under the Act 7/77, or the A.P. Land Encroachment Act. They submit that on the one hand, the property was shown as part of land, in Sy.No.101/17, in the proceedings dated 29-05-2010, whereas in the impugned notice, dated 16-07-2012, it is shown as part of Sy.Nos.101/19 & 20 of Nagole Village.

The 3rd respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit. He submits that the entire extent in Sy.No.101 is a Government land, and up to sub-divisions 18, the bits of that land were assigned to various persons. According to him, the land in Sy.Nos.101/19 and 20 of Nagole Village continued to be owned by the Government. It is stated that on noticing encroachment of the land, by the petitioners, proceedings were initiated under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act and the impugned order was passed, after considering the reply submitted by them. He submits that the petitioners have no title or right over the land.

Heard Sri P. Sriharsha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

The petitioners purchased the plot of 750 sq.yards in Sy.No.101/17 of Nagole Revenue Village, Uppal Mandal, in the recent past, through sale deed dated 31-03-2010. It was shown to be part of Sy.No.101/17. Even according to the 3rd respondent, the land in Sy.No.101/17 was assigned, long back. It was on that basis, that he initiated proceedings under the Act 7/77, against the vendor of the petitioners. An explanation was submitted thereto. No orders are passed by the 3rd respondent, in the said proceedings.

The petitioners were issued a notice under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act in respect of the very property, but showing it as part of Sy.Nos.101/19 and 20 of Nagole Village. The petitioners filed a detailed representation, raising several objections. Not satisfied with the explanation, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order.

In the normal course, a person, who feels aggrieved by an order passed under Section 3 of the Act 7/77, has to avail the remedy of appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The order im