APHC010114242020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 6947/2020 Between: Nerella Madhava ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M R K CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER:- Heard Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. Challenging the proceedings of the Tahsildar/3rd respondent dated 22.01.2020 issued under Sections 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “the Act”) and the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 (for short “the Rules”), the present writ petition is filed. 2 3. It is contended that the petitioner’s father has purchased the subject property vide registered sale deed dated 13.05.2004 from one Kelli Prabhakara Rao and Kelli Mutyala Rao. The vendor of the petitioner’s father was issued with title deed and pass book and since the date of purchase, the petitioner’s father and the petitioner has been inoccupation of the subject land. It is contended that the petitioner is a landless poor person and fall within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Act. However, the Tahsildar invoked the provisions of Section 3 of the Act against the petitioner and issued notice dated 22.01.2020 in Form-II requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the land should not be resumed. To the said notice, the petitioner has submitted his explanation. However, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order without referring to the contents of the explanation filed by the petitioner. 4. The 3rd respondent filed his counter affidavit stating that the subject land was initially assigned in favour of one Kelli Prabhakara Rao, subsequently, the petitioner’s father has purchased the same from the said assignee. Since the conditions of the assignment were violated, notice under Rule 3 of the Rules was issued to the assignee as well as the petitioner. The assignee did not submit any explanation to the said notice. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the order has rightly been passed by the 3rd respondent under Sections 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007. 3 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would contend that the transfer in favour of the petitioner’s father itself is in violation of the conditions of the assignment. Therefore, the authorities have rightly invoked for resumption of the land and accordingly resumption orders were passed. 6. Considered the rival submissions. 7. As seen from the notice issued under Form-II appended to the writ petition reflects that the name of the assignee was mentioned as one Dommati Kasaiah, whereas the order passed under Section 4 of the Act, the name of the assignee is mentioned as one Kelli Prabhakara Rao. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit and Form-I and Form-II that were issued in the case, were annexed to the counter affidavit. The same reflects that Form-I was addressed to Kelli Prabhakara Rao showing his name as assignee and Form-II addressed to one Gundapu Gowri, Gundugolanu Village, Bhimadole Mandal. However, in the very same notice, name of the assignee was mentioned as Dommati Kasaiah and name of the enjoyer was mentioned as Neralla Madhava. From the three notices, notices in Form-I and II annexed to the counter affidavit would reflect that the respondents have not applied mind in issuing notice, in one notice, it was addressed to the name of the assignee, which is mentioned as Kelli Prabhakara Rao. In another notice, it was mentioned as Dommati Kasaiah and the same was addressed to Gundapu Gowri while mentioning the name Neralla Madhava as name of the enjoyer. In view of the same, as observed that the Form I and II, the same 4 are not sustainable. Without going into the merits of issue, the order impugned in the writ petition, is not sustainable. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 22.01.2020, however liberty is granted to the respondents to pass orders afresh, if advised, after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. Till such time, the petitioner's possession shall not be disturbed by the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:25.02.2025 ANI 5 295 THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No.6947 of 2020 Date:25.02.2025 ANI