APHC010361942025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 18558/2025 Between: 1. K SANKAR REDDY, W/O. K KESAVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCCULTIVATION, R/O.D.NO.1-136, REGATIPALLI VILLAGE, DHARMAVARAM 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, ANANTAPUR. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHARMAVARAM, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, DHARMAVARAM MANDAL ANANTAPUR 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 or order or direction more particularly one 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 petitioners land an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No.423-4 situated at Regatipalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur District under BSO 15(12)(3), without conducting enquiry and beyond his jurisdiction and contrary SRS,J W.P.No.18558 of 2025 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 4THrespondent not to dispossess the petitioner from the above said land and pass and pass s 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 not to dispossess Petitioner from the agricultural land an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No.423-4 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 s Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Assailing the proceedings issued by respondent No.4 vide Rc.No.142/2025/A, dated 10.06.2025 (Ex.P1) and resuming the land of an extent of Ac.4. 00 cents in Sy.No.423-4, the above writ petition has been filed. 2. Heard Sri K. Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Divya Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appeared for respondents 1 to 4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was assigned with DKT Patta vide No.DKT1754533620722450, for an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No.423-4 of Regatipalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, SRS,J W.P.No.18558 of 2025 Anantapur District by the then Tahsildar. The Revenue Authorities updated the Record of Rights and issued RoR-IB, the Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deeds. 4. 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 petitioner is directed to submit the records on 24.04.2025 at 11.00 AM. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 24.04.2025 (Ex.P3) by submitting the relevant documents. Respondent No.4, without considering the explanation, passed the order Ex.P1 resuming the land to the Government as per B.S.O.15(12)(3). 5. Learned counsel would submit that the order passed by respondent No.4 suffers from a violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. Learned counsel would further submit that Respondent No.4 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. 6. 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. Consideration: 7. 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 SRS,J W.P.No.18558 of 2025 notice to the petitioner on 10.04.2025, and the petitioner submitted an explanation on 15.04.2025. 8. In the proceedings impugned, the respondent No.4, as per the explanation of the petitioner, summed up the following points: 1. The assignee is not eligible for assignment as he is not a member of CJFS member of Regatipalli Village. 2. The assignee is not a Bonafide resident of Regatipalli Village. As per the Aadhar Card the address of the assignee relates to Elukuntla Village, Kanaganipalli Mandal and not entitled for assignment in Regatipalli Village. Thus the assignee concealed the facts of Bonafide residence to get assignment in his/her favour. 3. The assignee not brought the land to assigned to him/her vide D.A.R.Dis.No.DKT1754533620722450, File No.1607 and as such it is established that, there is infringement of condition No.1 of the D.Patta Condition. 4. Though assignment was not made, the assignee possessed and assigned 1B.No.2072 which is irregular. 5. Though the assignment committee is not approved the beneficiary, the grant is made irregularly in the name of the assignee. 6. The assignee is not a Sivaijamadar. 9. Respondent No.4, having noted the above points, eventually concluded that the petitioner violated the conditions of the grant and resumed the land to the Government as per B.S.O.15(12)(3). 10. It is very unfortunate and a sorry state of affairs that the respondent No.4 did not even consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Page 5 of 7 SRS,J W.P.No.18558 of 2025 11. In the first place, the show-cause notice doesn’t contain the alleged breaches. Unless the authority mentions the breaches, if any, vis-à-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 Ors1, 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 Ors2, 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.” 14. In fact, respondent No.4 did not mention any violations in the show-cause notice dated 10.04.2025 (Ex.P2). The points mentioned in the proceedings impugned vide Rc.No.142/2025/A, dated 10.06.2025 (Ex.P1) referred supra, 1 (1980) 3 SCC 1 2 (2021) 2 SCC 551 SRS,J W.P.No.18558 of 2025 are not part of either the show-cause notice or the explanation. The proceedings impugned do not signify the cancellation of the patta. Respondent No.4 passed a resumption order, without even cancelling the patta. In the considered opinion of this Court, that respondent No.4, without application of mind to the fact situation, issued the proceedings impugned vide Rc.No.142/2025/A, dated 10.06.2025 (Ex.P1). 15. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the proceedings issued by respondent No.4 vide Rc.No.142/2025/A, dated 10.06.2025 (Ex.P1). The matter is remitted to respondent No.4. Respondent No.4, if necessary, may issue a fresh notice setting out the irregularities and alleged illegalities, enabling the petitioner to give a proper explanation. Thereupon, respondent No.4 shall follow the Principles of Natural Justice by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and pass a reasoned order. The petitioner is also entitled to submit new defences, including the jurisdiction. If the petitioner raises jurisdiction, the learned respondent No.4 shall address the same and pass a reasoned order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 22.07.2025 TVN SRS,J W.P.No.18558 of 2025 203 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.18558 OF 2025 Date : 22.07.2025 TVN