C. Praveen Kumar, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (AP). Questioning the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar, in cancelling the DKT patta granted in favour of Chakala Guravaiah, the present writ petition is filed.

The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as under:

The first petitioner claims himself to be the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0.66 cents in Sy.No.490 of Kalavagunta Village, Penumuru Mandal, Chittoor District, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 19.02.2003 from Smt. Sarala, who inturn purchased the same from Smt. Saraswathi. It is also claimed that the second petitioner purchased Ac.0.94 cents in Sy.No.490 of Kalavagunta Village, Penumuru Mandal, Chittoor District, through a registered sale deed dated 17.08.2001 from R.Sahadevan, R.Janakiraman and R.Namasivayan, who were the successors of Rangaswamy Mudaliyar, who inturn purchased the said property through registered sale deeds dated 15.12.1967 and 30.03.2001. From the date of purchase, the petitioners claims to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment over their respective property. While things stood thus, the Tahsildar, Penumuru Mandal, issued the impugned order stating that a representation came to be submitted by Chergaiah and others of Eguva Punepalli Village, with regard to the pathway and enquiries made by the Village Revenue Officer and Additional Revenue Inspector, Penumuru, revealed that the original assignee has violated the conditions of patta by alienating part of the assigned land in favour of third parties. It is averred that the said land was not under cultivation and is also vacant with erected stone fencing. A notice is said to have been issued to the petitioners and also to the original assignees, but the petitioners failed to attend the enquiry. Having regard to the material collected, the D.K.T. patta granted in favour of Chakala Guravaiah (original assignee) was cancelled and the land was resumed to the Government. Challenging the said action on the ground of jurisdiction the present writ petition is filed. A counter came to be filed by the respondents disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated that under Board Standing Orders, the Tahsildar alone is competent to cancel the pattas if there is a violation of condition of the patta and the Collector gets jurisdiction to cancel the patta only when there is a suppression of material facts and misrepresentation of facts. In any event, it is stated that the petitioners have a remedy of appeal under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short the Act, 1977), which the petitioners should have availed before approaching this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly submits that the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to cancel the D.K.T. patta granted in favour of the assignees and that the Collector alone has the power to cancel the patta. He further submits that since the assignment patta was in the year 1940, the original assignee can transfer the land in favour of third parties as the restriction of alienation came into force much later. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in B. Mani v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 1 ALT 334, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that the Tahsildar has no power to cancel the patta for breach of conditions of the patta. In order to appreciate the same, it would be useful to refer to certain provisions of Act, 1977, and Board Standing Orders.

Section 3 of the Act, 1977, reads as under:

3. Prohibition of Transfer of assigned lands:

(1) Where before or after the commencement of this Act any land has been assigned by the Government to a landless poor person for purpose of cultivation or as a house-site then, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law for the time being in for