APHC010147932020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 9050/2020 Between: Veeravalli Jayaramu ...PETITIONER AND State Of AP and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K JYOTHI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 O R D E R: The present writ petition is filed questioning the notice issued in Form-II, vide ROC.No.17/2020, dated 09.01.2020, issued by the 4th respondent under Rule 3 of Act 9 of 1977. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.55 cents in Survey No.532-2D of Srungavaruksham village, Palakoderu Mandal, West Godavari District, having purchased the same by virtue of registered sale deed dated 01.12.1988, vide document No.2002 of 1988. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that, since the date of purchase, he continuing to be in possession and enjoyment of the said land and eking out his livelihood from the income derived from the subject land. It is further stated in the affidavit that, while so, the 4th respondent issued the impugned notice dated 09.01.2020 to the petitioner directing him to submit explanation as to why he shall not be evicted from the subject land. In pursuance of the said notice, the petitioner submitted explanation and requested the 4th respondent to give an opportunity of being heard. 3 4. It is further case of the petitioner that, while things stood thus on 13.05.2020 at about 11.00 AM, when the petitioner was not present in the village, the 4th respondent along with his staff visited the subject land and started taking measurements, so as to allot the same to the eligible beneficiaries under the scheme “Navaratnalu-Pedavalandariki illu”. Questioning the said action, the present writ petition is filed. 5. It is specific case of the petitioner that, the impugned notice is liable to be set aside on the ground that the 4th respondent did not issue notice in Form-I to him as contemplated under Act 9 of 1977 and the Rules made there under. According to the Rule 3 of 2007 Rules, notice in Form-I and Form-II shall be served on both transferee and transferor, before initiating action against the petitioner. It is specifically pleaded that the 4th respondent did not adhere to Rule 3 of 2007 Rules framed under Act 9 of 1977. 6. He would further contend that the said issue is no longer res-integra, as the same has been decided by this Court in M/s Sudalagunta Sugars Limited., Vs. The Joint Collector, 4 Chittoor and another 1 and prays to set aside the notice impugned. 7. On the other hand, the 4th respondent filed counter affidavit stating that, initially the subject land was assigned in favour of one Sri Konala Daivasahayam, S/o. Karnelu, R/o. Srungravaruksham Village of Palacoderu Mandal. The original assignee in contravention of the provisions of Act 9 of 1977 has sold away the subject land in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, by invoking provisions of the said Act, the 4th respondent issued Form-I notice to the original assignee and Form-II notice to the petitioner. It is further stated that instead of submitting his explanation, the petitioner filed the present writ petition questioning the Form-II notice. It is further contended that the writ petition filed against the notice is not maintainable and prays to dismiss the said petition. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner purchased the property by virtue of registered sale deed from the original assignee. 1 (2017) 2 ALD 529 5 Under normal circumstances, this Court would not interfere with the impugned notice but in the instance case, the 4th respondent did not adhere to Rule 3 of the Rules framed in the year 2007 under Act 9 of 1977. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, whenever, the 4th respondent wants to initiate action for contravention of the provisions of Act 9 of 1977, notice in Forms-I and II shall be issued to both the assignee and as well as to the transferee. 10. Admittedly in the instant case, no such notice in Form-I was issued to the petitioner. Further, nothing was placed on record to show that such notice is issued to the petitioner. In the absence of any notice issued in Form-I to the petitioner, the 4th respondent cannot proceed further in the matter. 11. Following the ratio laid down by this Court in the above judgment, the present writ petition is allowed and notices impugned dated 09.01.2020 is hereby set aside. It is needless to mention that the 4th respondent is at liberty to proceed further in the matter after following due procedure contemplated under Rule 3 of Rules framed under Act 9 of 1977. 6 12. For the reasons recorded supra, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Dt.20.06.2025 SR