APHC010354952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 18210/2025 Between: 1. A GURU SIDDARTHA ROYAL, S/O. GURU SHEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,RESIDING AT D.NO. 1-244, EGUVA AMILEPALLE VILLAGE,GURRAMKONDA MANDAL, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT. 2. A. RAJYALAKSHMI,, W/O. GURU SHEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,RESIDING AT D.NO. 1-244, EGUVA AMILEPALLE VILLAGE,GURRAMKONDA MANDAL, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE AND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE BUILDING, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MADANAPALLE, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, GURRAMKONDA MANDAL, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT. 5. M REDDEPPA, S/O. M. LATE. UTHANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,R/O.BODIGUTTA HARIJANAWADA, H/O, SETTIVARIPALLE,GURRAMKONDA MANDAL, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT. 6. M MANOHARA, S/O.M.REDDEPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O.BODIGUTTA HARIJANAWADA, H/O,SETTIVARIPALLE, GURRAMKONDA MANDAL, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT. Page 2 of 4 7. M MADHU, S/O M.REDDEPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O. BODIGUTTA HARIJANAWADA, H/O, SETTIVARIPALLE,GURRAMKONDA MANDAL, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or other appropriate writ, order or direction, to declare the action of the Respondent No.4 in issuing the proceedings vide Roc.A/3/2025 dated 15.03.2025 in resuming the land admeasuring Ac.3.34 cents in Sy.No.68/1, 68/2 situated at Amilepalle Village, Gurramkonda Mandal, Annamaiah District in threatening to dispossess the Petitioner from the above said land as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, dehors jurisdiction and contrary to the Articles 14, 21 and 300-A and the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, and Rules made there under besides being violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently to set aside the proceedings vide Roc.A/3/2025 dated 15.03.2025 in resuming the land admeasuring Ac.3.34 cents in Sy.No.68/1, 68/2 situated at Amilepalle Village, Gurramkonda Mandal, Annamaiah District and further direct the Respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner herein over the subject land, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 not to dispossess the petitioner from the property admeasuring Ac.3.34 cents in Sy.No.68/1, 68/2 situated at Amilepalle Village, Gurramkonda Mandal, Annamaiah District, pending disposal of the above writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VUBBARA DUSHYANTH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri V.Dudhyanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.Divya Theja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 4. 2. Notice in respect of respondents 5 to 7 is dispensed with, in the facts and circumstances of this case. 3. Impugning the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent vide Roc.A/3/2025, dated 15.03.2025, resuming an extent of Ac.3.34 cents in S.Nos.68/1 and 68/2 of Amilepalle village, Gurramkonda Mandal, Annamayya District, the above writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the aforementioned land was originally assigned to Mekala Akulappa. The son of Akulappa, by name M.Uthanna sold the property to the 2nd petitioner A.Rajya Lakshmi, under a sale deed dated 10.08.2017. Thereafter, the 2nd petitioner alienated the property to the 1st petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 15.06.2024 vide document No.3097 of 2024. He would submit that notices under Form I and II as per Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 were not served on the petitioners. Notice under Form-II was alone served on the petitioners, and the Notice under Form-I was served on the legal representatives of the original assignee. He would also submit that service of notice under Form I and II is mandatory as per the ratio laid by the composite High Court in M/s Sudalagunta Sugars Limited Vs. The Joint Collector, Chittoor and another1. 1 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 375 : (2017) 2 ALD 529 : (2017) 1 ALT 499 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, would submit that the notices under Form I and II were not served on the petitioners, as well as the legal representatives of the assignee. He would submit that notice under Form I was served on the legal representative of the assignee, and the notice under Form II was served on the petitioners. CONSIDERATION: 5. Learned single Judge of the composite High Court in M/s Sudalagunta Sugars Limited (supra) concluded that service of notices under Form I and II on both assignee as well as the purchasers is mandatory as per Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 is mandatory. The ratio has been followed in a number of cases. 6. In the case at hand, admittedly, as seen from Ex.P1 proceedings, notice under Form I was served on the legal representatives of the original assignee and the Notice under Form II was served on the petitioners. Since there is an infraction in the procedure, given the ratio in Sudalagunta Sugar’s case, the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent vide Roc.A/3/2025, dated 15.03.2025, are hereby set aside. However, this order will not preclude the 4th respondent from issuing notices as contemplated under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 on the purchasers as well as assignees. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD