ORDER

V.V.S. Rao, J.

1. The petitioner's father was assigned an extent of Acs.3.00 of dry land in Survey Nos. 778/1 and 778/2 of Charakonda Village, Vangooru Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. The land was brought into cultivation. After the death of petitioner's father, the petitioner succeeded to the property and his name was also allegedly entered in the revenue records, but due to severe drought, he could not raise crops and started eking out livelihood as a cooly. When he visited the village in April 2004, he observed that fourth respondent, who also got assignment of land in Survey No. 778/6 admeasuring Acs.2.00, encroached/ occupied the land assigned to petitioner's father and therefore, he approached the revenue authorities requesting to take necessary action under the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (the Act, for brevity), in vain. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition seeking direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against fourth respondent for alleged contravention of the provisions of the Act.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. Narayana Reddy, made forcible submissions on the same lines as are mentioned in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition. He also placed reliance on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in U. Pandaiah v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Sydapuram, (S.R.C) 1992 (1) LS 14.

3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, Sri A. Hari Prasada Reddy, submits that if the land is assigned to the petitioner's father as well as fourth respondent and the latter has encroached upon the land, it gives rise to a civil dispute and a writ petition is not maintainable. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste (Mala) whereas the fourth respondent belongs to a non-Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

4. The Act prohibits transfer of assigned land by an assignee to any third party. Such transfer - be it alienation, mortgage, gift or licence - is rendered void by reason of Section 3(1) of the Act. However, by reason of Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act alienation/transfer of assigned land in favour of a landless poor person is exempted subject to the competent authority validating such transfer. When the assigned land is transferred, it is incumbent on the part of the Mandal Revenue Officer to initiate proceedings for assignment of the land, take back the possession and restore the possession to the original assignee or the legal heirs of such original assignee. On restoration, if the original assignee again transfers the land in favour of third parties, the Mandal Revenue Officer may resume the land from the transferee and it need not be assigned to the same assignee second time. That was what was laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in U. Pandaiah v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Sydapuram (supra) as under :

If the original assignee has committed the error of alienating the assigned land for the first time in his life and if the land is taken possession of by the authorities under Section 4 of the Act, then it is obligatory on the part of the authorities to restore the said land in favour of the original assignee or his legal heir as the case may be. However if the original again commits the error of alienation of the land in favour of any other person, then the said land shall not be restored to such original assignee or his legal heir and may be resumed by the Government for the purpose of assignment of the said land in favour of another landless poor person.

5. After giving anxious consideration to the facts of this case, this Court is not able to understand as to how the provisions of the Act pressed into service in the factual background of this case. Admittedly, the petitioner left the village in search of livelihood and when he came back to the village, it was found that the fourth respondent encroached upon the land in Survey Nos.778/1 and 778/2. No allegation of any transfer of such land in favour of the fourth respondent by the father of the petitioner or the petitioner himself. In such an event, the provisions of the Act are not attracted. The petitioner, admittedly, had a possessory title as well as substantive right (see Land Acquisition Officer-cum-RDO v. Mekala Pandu, ). Therefore, when the possession of the

owner/possessor is disturbed, it gives rise a cause of action to a suit for specific relief of permanent injunction or suit for possession simplicitor under Section 5 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. Further, as the petitioner claims to be a person belonging to Scheduled Caste and as he is allegedly, wrongfully dispossessed by a person not belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the same would amount to cognizable offence under Section 3(1)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act). Therefore, the petitioner has to seek redressal elsewhere and the writ petition is not maintainable. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner's representations dated 6-7-2005 and 1-8-2005 have not been disposed of by the respondents 1 to 3. Therefore, without waiting for the response from them, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the Civil Court and also lodge a complaint under Section 3(1)(v) of the Act. In this writ petition, no relief can be granted.

6. The writ petition, for the above reasons, is dismissed. No costs.