APHC010000302021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 21/2021 Between: Rachakondaappala Siva Sarma and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: High handed interference with the petitioner’s property admeasuring Ac.3.00 cents in Sy.No.46-1, Zerothi Patt No.193, Tunivalasa Village, Tunivalasa Gramapanchayat, Padmanabham Mandal, Bheemunipatnam SRO, Visakhapatnam District, is the grievance in the present Writ Petition. 2. Heard Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that the petitioner purchased the subject property through registered sale deed in the year 1999 and ever since, he is in possession of the subject property and pursuantly, pattadar passbook was also issued in his favour. Now, at this length of time, the respondents have 2 interfered with the subject property of the petitioner high handedly without following due process of law. As such filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that, in counter affidavit, it is stated that the original assignee i.e., the petitioner’s vendor has violated the conditions of assignment and accordingly, by invoking the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act 9 of 1977), the resumption orders have been passed. He further submitted that even as per the resumption orders, nowhere it indicates that, a notice has been issued to the vendee of the original assignee i.e., the petitioner herein. Though Form-I notice filed along with the counter is indicating that it has been issued to the petitioner, it was not served on the petitioner and there is no piece of material filed by the respondents evidencing that the said notice has been served on the petitioner. Further, there is no indication of service of notice on the petitioner even in the impugned proceedings. Therefore, the resumption proceedings passed by the respondents are not binding on the petitioner as they are passed behind the back of the petitioner. Now, at this length of time, basing on the proceedings said to have been passed by the respondents, they cannot evict the petitioner from the subject property. Accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on counter affidavit, submitted that the subject land is classified as ‘A.W.D. Gayalu’ and the original assignee namely Sri P.Buchi Naidu has violated the conditions of assignee and for which, the respondent authorities have invoked the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act 9 of 1977) and issued Form-I and Form-II notices to the individuals and accordingly, passed resumption orders. As such, the petitioner cannot claim any right over the property and prayed to dismiss the writ petition as the same is devoid of merits. 3 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for both sides. 6. The petitioner is claiming the subject property through registered sale deed vide Document No.2760/1999, dated 25.11.1999 and pursuantly, the pattadhar passbook was also issued in his favour vide Patta No.187. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities are trying to interfere with his possession without following the due process of law. A counter has been filed by the respondent No.4 - Tahsildar duly contending that the original assignee, the vendor of the petitioner by name Sri P.Buchi Naidu has sold the property to the petitioner by violating the assignee conditions. In those circumstances, by invoking the provisions of Act 9 of 1977, the resumption orders have been passed. Notice under Form-I has been issued to the petitioner which has been placed on record along with the counter affidavit, but no Form-II notice as required under law was not placed on record. Further, resumption orders also does not speak anything about the issuance of Form-I and Form-II to assignee and purchaser. 8. In the decision in M/s. Sudalagunta Sugars Limited, v. The Joint Collector, Chittoor and another1, a coordinate bench of this Court while dealing with the issue as to Whether the impugned Notice contains sufficient details to formulate an issue for decision or not and (II) Whether the notice in Form-II would suffice the requirement of Rule 3 for passing an order under Section 4 of the Act or not, held thus: “21. The Government through G.O.Ms. No. 208 Revenue (Assn.-POT) dated 22.02.2007 framed the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007. Rule 3 has laid down the procedure for eviction of the transferee and taking possession and restoration of assigned lands. Rule 3 reads thus: 1.(2017) 2 ALD, 529 4 3. Procedure for eviction of the Transferee and taking possession and restoration of Assigned Lands : - The District Collector or the Authorized Officer shall, before taking action under clauses (a) and (b) sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, issue notices in Form No. 1 and Form II to the persons who have transferred and also to the persons who have acquired any assigned land in contravention of the provisions of sub- section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. The notices shall be served by delivering a copy on Transferor and transferee or some adult male member of the family of such transferor or transferee at their usual place of abode or to their authorized agent or by affixing a copy thereof at some conspicuous place of their 19st known place of residence or on some conspicuous part of the assigned land. After the expiry of (fifteen) 15 days specified in the notice, the District Collector or the Authorized Officer shall consider the representation, if any, received with reference to the said notice and pass such order as he thinks fit and proper. If it is held that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the Act, have been contravened in respect of any assigned land, a copy of the order shall be communicated to the Village Officer concerned under whose territorial jurisdiction that land is situated for taking possession of the land and thereupon the land shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 of the Act. 22. The answer to the point under consideration firstly depends on interpretation of Rule.3. 23. Plain and literal construction of Rule 3 leads to the following results: i) The District Collector or authorized officer shall issue notices in Form-I and Form-II before taking action under clauses (a) and (b) of sub section (1) of Section 4 of the Act to persons who have transferred and also to the persons who have acquired any assigned land in contravention of sub section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. ii) The notices are directed to be served by delivering a copy on transferor and transferee or on some adult person etc. as stated therein. iii) The District Collector or authorized officer is under obligation to consider the representation, if any, with reference to the said notice and pass such order as he thinks fit and proper. iv) The copy of order is also directed to be communicated to the Village Officer. 24. The Act as evident from statement of objects and reasons is enacted to prohibit alienation of assigned land, and restoration of assigned land to 5 original assignee or in accordance with Section 4 of the Act. The special enactment as held in Dasari Narayana Raos case (1 supra) is concerned with the transfer of assigned land and restoration to assignee or in accordance with Section 4. The proceedings under the Act are treated as civil proceedings. The District Collector or the competent authority under the Act enjoys authority or jurisdiction in respect of transfer of assigned land. Therefore, the fundamental fact clothing the District Collector or the authorized officer to exercise the jurisdiction under the Act is whether the subject matter of the notice in Forms I and II is an assigned land or not. Secondly the attraction of jurisdiction is further conditioned by the clause of non-alienability as one of the conditions of assignment. In other words, even though the assignment was by the Government of Government land, if the assignment is not with the condition of non-alienability or the assignment for market value or the assignment of agricultural land was made prior to 1954, assignment made under special and privileged categories namely, freedom fighters, armed personnel, societies etc. the jurisdiction against transfer of such land is not brought under the Act. Section 3 succinctly renders transfer of assigned land has never been transferred, prohibits assignee from transferring assigned land and also the transferee from acquiring assigned land in one or the other form as stated under Section 3(2) of the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 goes a step further and renders any transfer effected notwithstanding the rigor of sub sections 1 and 2 of Section 3 null and void. Section 4 deals with consequences of breach of provisions of Section 3. It is to give effect to the consequences contemplated under Section 4, Rule 3 provides for procedure for taking care of consequences referred under Section 4 of the Act. Rule 3 as already summarized has made it obligatory to issue a notice before taking any action under clauses (a) and (b) of sub section 1 of Section 4 of the Act. Rule 3 further directs the District Collector or the authorized officer to issue notices in Form-I and Form-II to the persons who have transferred and also to the persons who have acquired assigned land in contravention of provisions of sub section 1 of Section 3 of the Act. The Government in its wisdom and by keeping in view the composite scheme of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, has used the plural expression for the word Notices in Form-I and Form-II to be served on both the transferor and transferee of assigned land. The plural word Notices is again repeated while dealing with the manner of service of notice on the transferor/transferee or the adult member as the case may be. Section 4 is intended to give effect to the consequences provided by Section 3 of the Act for transfer of assigned land. Prohibition under Section 3 of the Act or the consequences of Section 4 is attracted, only if transfer of assigned land with condition of non-alienability has taken place and not to all transfers. Therefore, the issue of notices in Form-I and Form-II both to transferor and transferee of assigned land cannot but be natural, legal to achieve the object sought to be achieved by Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The transferor or transferee as already noted, if the 6 circumstances available can take one or the other defences namely that the assignment is prior to 1954; assignment made in favour of special class of persons with a restriction for specific period and transfer is effected beyond the restricted period etc.” 9. The above observations make it clear that issuance of notices in Form-I and Form-II to both the transferor and transferee of the assigned land is essential for achieving the object sought to be achieved by Sections 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. 10. Thus non-issuance of Form-II to the petitioner and not placing any material on record regarding issuance of Form-I & II on the original assignee is a serious irregularity and the same is in violation of the mandatory requirement of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Further the resumption orders nowhere speaks about issuance of both the notices on both the assignee and purchaser. 11. In view of the same, basing on the said resumption orders, the respondent authorities cannot dispossess the petitioner from the subject property. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and the submissions of both the learned counsel, this writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the subject property, except under due process of law. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 02.01.2025 SCS 7 268 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 21/2021 Date:- 02.01.2025 SCS