ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“ …to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declare the action of the 1 st respondent in issuing the Procgs.No.

10497/Assmn.IV(1)/2008-4, dt 15.12.2008, proceedings No.B1/5461/2006,dt 30.6.2007 of 2 ndrespondent, proceedings No. H/830/2006 dt.31.10.2006 of 3 rd Respondent and Proceedings No. A/220/2006 dt 24.4.2006 of 4 th Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set a side and consequently direct the respondents direct the respondents not to interfere from the possession of the petitioners agricultural land admeasuring 4.03 guntas in Sy.No. 1/253 situated at Gudamamda Village of Jainoor Mandal, Adilabad District.”

2. Heard Sri Y.Ashok Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Jogram Tejavat, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe community and he is land less poor person. He had purchased the property from respondent No.5 under simple sale deed to an extent of Acs.4-03 guntas dry land covered by Sy.No.1/253 situated at Gudamamda Village of Jainoor Mandal, Kumuram Bheem Asifabad District (erstwhile Adilabad District) by paying valuable sale consideration. The subject land is an assigned land and respondent No.5 is an assignee and the petitioner purchased under good faith and he comes within the definition of ‘land less poor person’ and also he is entitled to claim benefit of Section 3(5) of A.P.Assignment Land (Prohibition Of Transfer) Act, 1977 (hereinafter called “the Act” for brevity).

4. While things stood thus, respondent No.4 initiated the proceedings under the provisions of the Act at the instance of respondent No.5 and issued Form-I notice and the petitioner submitted detailed explanation, requesting respondent No.4 to drop the proceedings. Without considering the same, respondent No.4 passed the resumption order on 24.04.2006 directing the Mandal Revenue Inspector to take over possession into Government custody. The Mandal Revenue Inspector has taken over the possession and the same in the Government custody.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.5 filed appeal before respondent No.3 and the appellate Authority has confirmed the order of respondent No.4, vide proceedings dated 31.10.2006.

Questioning the above said order, respondent No.5 filed further appeal before respondent No.2 and the said appeal has been disposed of by directing the Tahsildar to restore the possession in favour of the assignee/respondent No.5. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed revision petition invoking the provisions of Section 4-B of the Act before respondent No.1.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the revisional authority, without considering the grounds raised in the memorandum of revision petition, had simply dismissed the revision petition and passed a cryptic order without assigning any reasons and the same is contrary to settled principles of law.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5, submits that respondent No.2, after giving cogent reasons allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.5 holding that as per the provisions of the Act the subject land has to be restored to the original assignee and respondent No.1 rightly confirmed the order passed by the respondent No.2 and as such there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by respondent No.1.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader reiterated the very same submissions.

9. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, which clearly