APHC010362242025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 18121/2025 Between: 1. PULI VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O. LATE SUBBARAO, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.4-78, VEERANKIVARIPALEM VILLAGE, NAGARAM MANDAL BAPATIA (ERSTWHILE GUNTUR) DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BAPATLA (ERSTWHILE GUNTUR) DISTRICT AT BAPATIA. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REPALLE, BAPATLA (ERSTWHILE GUNTUR) DISTRICT 4. THE TAHSILDAR, NAGARAM MANDAL, BAPATLA (ERSTWHILE GUNTUR) 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents particularly the 4th respondent in issuing Notice in Form-ll dated 14.07.2025 in Roc.No.270/2025 without issuing prerequisite Notice prescribed under Form-1 under A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) 2 Rules, 2007, in respect of private agricultural land of the petitioner situated in an extent of Ac.0.27 Cents in Survey NO.32-10A1, Ac.0.27 Cents in Survey No.32-10A2, Ac.0.27 Cents in Survey NO.32-10A3 and Ac.0.27 Cents in Survey No.32-10A4, totaling an extent of Ac.1.08 Cents of Dhulipudi Revenue Village, Nagaram Mandal, Bapatia (Erstwhile Guntur) District, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, malafide, contrary to law and against the Principles of Natural Justice besides violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and to consequently to set aside the notice by directing the respondents not to interfere with my peaceful possession and enjoyment over the above said land in any manner including dispossession 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 respondents not to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the private agricultural land of the petitioner situated in an extent of Ac.0.27 Cents in Survey No.32- 10A1, Ac.0.27 Cents in Survey No.32-10A2, Ac.0.27 Cents in Survey NO.32-10A3 & Ac.0.27 Cents in Survey No.32-10A4, totaling an extent of Ac.1.08 Cents of Dhulipudi Revenue Village, Nagaram Mandal, Bapatia (Erstwhile Guntur) District in any manner including dispossession by suspending the notice in Form-ll vide Roc.No.270/2025 dated 14.07.2025 issued by the 4th respondent, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K JYOTHI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents 1 to 4. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that without issuing Form-I under A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Rules, 2007 (for short “the Rules”), the 4th respondent is trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land of an extent of Ac.0-27 cents in Sy.No.32-10A1; Ac.0-27 cents in Sy.No.32- 3 10A2; Ac.0-27 cents in Sy.No.32-10A3 and Ac.0-27 cents in Sy.No.32-10A4, totaling Ac.1-08 cents, Dhulipudi Revenue Village, Nagaram Mandal, Bapatla District (hereinafter referred to as “subject properties”). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s father is the absolute owner of the aforementioned subject properties, acquired under a registered Sale Deed dated 30.11.1972 from V.Kotaiah and his sons. The name of the father of the petitioner is updated in the Record of Rights. Later, after the death of the petitioner’s father, in an oral partition, the property was devolved upon the petitioner’s sister by name M.Vani. The Revenue authorities updated her name in the Record of Rights and issued 1B RoR and Adangal. 4. Be that as it may, the 4th respondent issued notice under Form-II under Rule 3 of the Rules without issuing notice under Form-I. Learned counsel would submit that though the agricultural lands stood in the name of M.Vani, sister of the petitioner, the notice was issued to the petitioner and the same is illegal and arbitrary. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the notice under Form –I is not served on the petitioner. The authorities tried to serve notice under Form I to one V.Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Tirupati Rao, however, refused to receive the same. Hence, the same is pasted on the wall of his house. 6. Thus, as seen from the instructions, the notice in Form I was not served on the person who owns the property. Given the instructions, keeping the writ petition pending may not serve any purpose. 7. The 4th respondent ought to have issued notices in Forms I and II not only to the original assignee or legal heirs but also to the person presently in possession of the property (purchaser or legal heirs). Issuance of notices in Forms I and II to both the assignee and the purchaser (or person in 4 possession) is mandatory, as held in M/s. Sudalagunta Sugars Limited v. The Joint Collector, Chittoor and another.1 8. Since no notice in Form I was served, the notice issued in Form II to the petitioner is hereby set aside on the ground of violation of Rule 3 of the Rules framed under Act 9 of 1977, as amended in 2007. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. This order will not preclude the authority from following due process. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Date: 18.07.2025 KA 1 92017) 2 ALD 529 5 380 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 18121/2025 Date: 18.07.2025 KA