APHC010359082025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 17994 OF 2025 0 Between: S Narayanamma, W/o. S Mutyalappa, Aged , R/o.D.No.1-258, Regatipalli Village, Dharmavaram about 50 years, Occ; Housewife, I Mandal, Anantapur District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Anantapur District, 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, r 4. The Tahsildar, Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur. Dharmavaram, Anantapur District. , Anantapur District. ...Respondents 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 or order or direction of Writ of Mandamus more particularly one in the nature aggrieved by the action of the Respondent No issuing proceedings vide Rc.No. 142/2025/A dated of petitioner's land . 4 in 10.06.2025 for resumption . Ac, TOO cents in Sy.No.411-1 situated at Regatipalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur District under BSO 15(12)(3), without conducting enquiry and beyond his jurisdiction and contrary to the Board Standing Orders is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of natural justice and property rights as guaranteed under Article 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same and further direct the 4th respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from the above said land. lA 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 4th respondent not to dispossess Petitioner from the agricultural land an extent of Ac. 1.00 cents in Sy.N6.411-1 situated at Regatipalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur District by suspending the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent vide Rc.No. 142/2025/A dated 10.06.2025, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: APHC010359082025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI V^^R!T PETITION NO: 17994/2025 Between: 1.S NARAYANAMMA. , W/0. S MUTYALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, VILLAGE, DHARMAVARAM MANUAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER R/O.D.NO.1-258, REGATIPALLI AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, DHARMAVARAMMANDAL, DISTRICT. REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, DHARMAVARAM ANANTAPUR ...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 one a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus aggrieved by the action of the Respondent No. 4 in issuing proceedings vide Rc.No. 142/2025/A dated 10.06.2025 for resumption of petitioner's land an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.411-1 situated at Regatipalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal Anantapur District under BSO 15(12)(3), without conducting enquiry and 2 beyond his jurisdiction and contrary to the Board Standing Orders is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of natural justice and property rights as guaranteed under Article 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same and further direct the 4th respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from the above said land and pass and pass lA 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 4th respondent not to dispossess Petitioner from the agricultural land an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.411-1 situated at Regatipalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur District by suspending the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent vide Rc.No.142/2025/A dated 10.06.2025, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass and pass Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.K NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following; ;;ORDER;; Heard Sri K.Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Divya Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 4. Assailing the proceedings issued by the 4‘^ respondent vide Rc.No.142/2025/A, dated 10.06.2025 (Ex.PI) and resuming the land of an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.411-1 (wrongly typed as Ac.2.00 cents in the proceedings), as illegal and arbitrary, the above writ petition has been filed. 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner assigned with DKT Patta vide DKT Patta was 3 9$ s No.DKT1754533626057607foran extent of Ac. 1.00 cents in Sy.No.411- 1 of Regatipalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur District by the then Tahsildar. The revenue authorities updated the record of rights and issued Form-IB (ROR), the pattadar pass book and title deeds. Be that as it may, a show cause notice vide Rc.No.A/142/2025 dated 10.04.2025 (Ex.P2) was issued to the petitioner and others. The name of the petitioner is shown at SI.No.18. The petitioner is directed to submit the records on 24.04.2025 at 11.00 AM. The petitioner submitted explanation dated 24.04.2025 (Ex.P3) by submitting the relevant documents. The 4'^ respondent, without considering the explanation, passed the order Ex.P1 resuming the land to the Government as per B.S.0.15(12)(3). 4. an Learned counsel would submit that the order passed by the 4 respondent suffers from a violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. Learned counsel would further submit that the 4^^ respondent failed to follow the procedure mandated under The Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, as amended by Act 35 of 2023 and the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007. He also would submit that no illegalities were pointed out in the notice, except for directing the petitioner to attend the office and submit an explanation. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue reported no counter. He would fairly submit that the order impugned doesn’t stand legal scrutiny. The authority, as seen from the proceedings, failed to adhere to the Principles of Natural Justice. The authority will pass orders afresh after considering the explanation of the petitioner and, if necessary, by affording an opportunity of hearing. 6. 7. Consideration: As seen from the proceedings impugned, the then Tahsildar issued DKT Patta to the petitioner on 31.10.2023. The Tahsildar called for a report from V.R.O, Regatipalli Village dated 27.03.2025, and thereafter, issued notice to the petitioner submitted an explanation on 24.04.2025. In the proceedings impugned, the 4^^ explanation of the petitioner, summed 1. The assignee is not eligible for assignment member of CJFS member of Regatipalli Village. 2. The assignee not brought the land to assigned to him/her vide D.A.R.Dis.No.DKTI754533626057607. File No 1607 IS established that, there is infringement of condition No.1 of the D.Patta Condition. petitioner on 10.04.2025, and the 8. respondent, as per the up the following points: as he is not a and as such it 3. Though assignment was not made, the assignee possessed and assigned IB.No.2605 which is irregular. 4. Though the assignment committee is not approved the beneficiary, the grant is made irregularly in the name of the assignee. 5. The assignee is not a Sivaijamadar. The 4‘^ respondent, having noted the above concluded that the petitioner violated the conditions of resumed the land to the Government as per B.S.0.15(12)(3). It is very unfortunate and respondent did not petitioner. 9. points, eventually the grant and 10. a sorry state of affairs that the 4‘^ even consider the explanation submitted by the 11. In the first place, the show alleged breaches. Unless the authority mentions the breaches, if any, cause notice doesn’t contain the 5 vis-a-vis the grant, the recipient may not be in a position to rebut the same. The recipient, normally, could not guess/read the attention of the authority, unless the authority points out the alleged misdeeds or violations. 12. In Nasir Ahmad vs. Assistant Custodian General, Evacuee Property, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and Ors', the Hon"ble Apex Court held thus; “It is essential for the notice to specify the particular grounds on the basis of which an action is proposed to be taken so as to enable the noticee to answer the case against him. If these conditions are not satisfied, the person cannot be said to have been granted any reasonable opportunity of being heard.” 13. In UMC Technologies Private Limited vs. Food Corporation of India and Ors^ the Hon''ble Apex Court held thus: “At the outset, it must be noted that it is the first principle of civilised jurisprudence that a person against whom any action is sought to be taken or whose right or interests are being affected should be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The basic principle of natural justice is that before adjudication starts, the authority concerned should give to the affected party a notice of the case against him so that he can defend himself. Such notice should be adequate and the grounds necessitating action and the penalty/action proposed should be mentioned specifically and unambiguously. An order traveling beyond the bounds of notice is impermissible and without jurisdiction to that extent.” ‘ (1980) 3 see 1 ^(2021) 2 see 551 6 In fact, the 4*^^ respondent did not mention any violations in the show cause notice dated 10.04.2025 (Ex.P2). The points mentioned in the proceedings impugned wc/e Rc.No.142/2025/A, dated 10.06.2025 (Ex.PI), referred supra, are not part of either the show cause notice the explanation. The proceedings impugned do not signify the cancellation of the patta. The 4*'^ respondent passed a resumption order without even cancelling the patta. In the considered opinion of the Court, respondent 14. or 4th the issued impugned Rc.No.142/2025/A, dated 1 0.06.2025 (Ex.P1) without application of mind to the fact situation. proceedings v/cte Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed. The proceedings impugned wde Rc.No.142/2025/A, dated 10.06.2025 (Ex.PI) are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the 4**^ respondent. The learned 4”^ respondent, if necessary, may issue a fresh notice setting out the irregularities and alleged illegalities, enabling the petitioner to give a proper explanation. Thereupon, the 4 respondent shall follow Principles of Natural Justice by providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order. The petitioner can submit new defences, including the jurisdiction. If the petitioner pleads jurisdiction, the learned 4*^" respondent shall address the same and pass a reasoned order. No costs. 15. th an Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. I ^ "t Sd/- B PRASADA RaO ASSISTANTRgGiSTRAR SECTION officer //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal Secretary Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Anantapur District 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings Anantapur. Dharmavaram, Anantapur District. 4. The Tahsildar, Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur District. 5. One CC to Sri K Narsi Reddy Advocate 6. Two CCS to GP for Revenue, 7. Two CD Copies [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] TF •tl' HIGH COURT DATED: 16/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 17994 OF 2025 $( 0 9 SEP 2025 i ^^vCijfrent Swtiofl..^^ Co ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS