Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12294 (AP)

KAKARLAPUDI VIJAYA VARADA PRATHAPA VARMA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/7456/2025 · 2025-03-21

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 NV,J W.P.No.7456 of 2025 APHC010144542025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7456/2025 Between: Kakarlapudi Vijaya Varada Prathapa Varma and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VENKAT CHALLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 NV,J W.P.No.7456 of 2025 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaring the action of the respondents, more particularly Respondent No.6 in passing the order date 12.03.2025 vide Rc.No.301/2024/SA under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 with regard to the petitioners land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0-94 cents in Sy.No.126/2, Ac.0-27 in Sy.No.126/4 and Ac.2-67 cents in Sy.No.126/5 (totaling to Ac.3-88 cents) situated in Uddhangi Village, Mentada Mandal, Vizianagaram District and thereby ordering the resumption of the said lands to Government without considering any of the objections raised by the petitioner and in complete contravention to the provision of the Act, settled principles of law, principles of natural justice and consequently, set-aside the order dated 12.03.2025 vide Rc.No.301/2024SA issued by Respondent No.6. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that, Petitioner No.1 and his father purchased land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0-94 cents in Sy.No.126/2, Ac.0- 27 in Sy.No.126/4 and Ac.2-67 cents in Sy.No.126/5 (totaling to Ac.3-88 cents) situated in Uddhangi Village, Mentada Mandal, Vizianagaram District by way of registered sale deeds for valuable consideration. Thereafter, Petitioner No.1 was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said lands. Pattadar passbooks, Form 1-B Adangals, and title deeds were also issued in his favour. Petitioner No.1 and his father had sold the subject lands to their 3 NV,J W.P.No.7456 of 2025 vendee – Mr. Datla Venkta Varaha Narasimharaju by way of registered sale deed. Since then, the vendee has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said lands. While the things stood thus, Petitioner No.1 received a notice in Form-1 dated 28.10.2024 under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 (for short ‘the Rules’) stating that he has been assigned the lands as specified in the schedule attached therein and that he has transferred the subject lands to Petitioner No.2, by contravening Section 3 of the Act, as such the land is liable to be resumed under Section 4 of the Act. 3. Further, Petitioner No.2 received notice dated 16.10.2024 under Form-II of the Rules stating that she was the transferee of the assigned lands and further directed to show cause as to why she shall not be evicted summarily from the assigned lands. Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 submitted explanations dated 27.11.2024 and 14.11.2024. Thereafter, Respondent No.6 had passed an order dated 12.03.2025 vide proceedings bearing Rc.No.3012024SA ordering for resumption of the lands to Government from Petitioners, directing Respondent Nos.3 & 4 to take possession of the subject lands with proper panchanama. Challenging the proceedings dated 12.03.2025, the present writ petition is filed. 4. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the objections of the petitioners dated 27.11.2024 and 13.11.2024 were not 4 NV,J W.P.No.7456 of 2025 considered by the 6th respondent and the impugned order does not mention about such explanations while considering the rights of the petitioners regarding the lands, as such the impugned order was passed in violation to the principles of natural justice and requested to set-aside the same. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Revenue supported the order passed by the Tahsildar, Mentada dated 12.03.2025 in all respects and submitted that the order was passed after affording opportunity to all parties, in accordance with law. 6. It appears that the Tahsidlar, Mentada on 12.03.2025 had come to conclusion that the assigned lands are not under the possession and enjoyment of the assignee, notices in Form-I & Form-II were issued to the assignees as well as purchasers in accordance with A.P. Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977 to submit their written or oral explanation, as to why the assignment should not be cancelled and the subject land shall not be resumed to the Government within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notices. 7. On perusal of the order dated 12.03.2025, it appears that one of the assignee/Petitioner No.1 submitted a letter requesting to grant some more time to submit his explanation as he is out of station and would return by 25.11.2024 and thereafter he would respond. Thereafter, Petitioner No.1 submitted his explanation, which was received by the office of the Tahsidlar, 5 NV,J W.P.No.7456 of 2025 Mentada on 27.11.2024. Without considering the explanation submitted by Petitioner No.1, the Tahsildar hastily came to a conclusion that Petitioner No.1 has nothing to offer in that regard and ordered resumption of the subject lands to Government from the present enjoyer. Non-consideration of explanation offered by Petitioner No.1 and passing the impugned order by Respondent No.6/Tahsildar is in contrary to the principles of natural justice and also principles of fair and reasonableness. Therefore, the action of Respondent No.6/Tahsildar in passing the order dated 12.03.2025 without considering the explanation of the petitioners is declared as illegal and arbitrary. 8. Hence, the order passed by the 6th respondent vide Rc.No.301/2024/SA dated 12.03.2025 is hereby set-aside; however the matter is remanded back to the sixth respondent for fresh consideration, after considering the explanation of the petitioner and after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, in accordance with law. Till then, all parties are directed to maintain status quo. No order as to costs. 9. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date: 21.03.2025 SP 6 NV,J W.P.No.7456 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7456/2025 Date:21.03.2025 W SP