1. In this batch of writ petitions, common question of fact and law arise. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.

2. The petitioners have purchased various extents of lands in different sub-divisions of Survey No.1397 of West Baptla Revenue Village, Guntur District. Alleging that the lands purchased by the petitioners were assigned to various individuals and that the petitioners purchased the same in contravention of Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’), the Tashildar, Baptla – the 4th respondent issued notices in Form-II prescribed under the Act to the petitioners. They were required to submit explanation within fifteen days as to why they should not be summarily evicted from the land with the buildings, if any, and the same be, not resumed to Government.

3. The petitioners submitted individual explanations. According to them, the land was not assigned in nature, and that clear recitals were made in the respective sale deeds to the effect that the lands are not assigned. It was further pleaded that no objection was raised by the Sub-Registrar when the sale deeds were registered. They have also pointed out that while recognizing the title, the Tahsildar has issued Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds, and that the proceedings are untenable. The invocation of the provisions of the Act was also questioned, stating that there did not exist any condition prohibiting alienation, even if the lands were assigned in nature.

4. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioners, the 3rd respondent passed separate orders of resumption on 18-05-2007. The petitioners filed appeals before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali, 3rd respondent herein. The appeals were dismissed through orders, dated 15-03-2010. Thereupon, the petitioners filed revisions before the Joint Collector, Guntur, 2nd respondent herein. Through a common order, dated 29-03-2012, the 2nd respondent dismissed the revisions. The petitioners availed the remedy of further revision to the Government, 1st respondent herein. The revisions were also dismissed through order, dated 26-07-2012. Hence, this batch of writ petitions.

5. The petitioners contend that the 4th respondent was not clear as to when the different pieces of land in Survey No.1397 were assigned and to whom, and unless these aspects are clear, the very basis for initiation of proceedings becomes untenable. They submit that the respondents 1, 2 and 3 did not examine the various contentions advanced by them and have simply dismissed the appeals or revisions, as the case may be.

6. Counter -affidavits are filed in some of the writ petitions. Since the facts relating to all the cases are common, the averments in the counter – affidavits can be treated as holding good, for all the cases.

7. The respondents pleaded that different extents of land in Survey No.1397 were assigned to various individuals and that the petitioners have purchased the assigned lands. It is stated that on account of the non-availability of the relevant record, the particulars of the assignees were not furnished and the subsequent verification revealed that the assignments were made in the year 1962 and thereabout. It is also stated that the purchase of lands, by the petitioners is in clear violation or contravention of the provisions of the Act and that all the authorities in the hierarchy of remedies, have consistently held against the petitioners and that the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

8. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the notices issued in Form – II of the Act to the petitioners are vague and bereft of the relevant particulars. He submits that though specific plea was raised to the effect that the lands were not assigned in nature, the 4th respondent passedlaconic orders, without even mentioning the date of assignment. He contends that the date of assignment assumes significance in view of the