APHC010364732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 1 MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 18364 OF 2025 Between: 1 1. Vennapusa Chenna Reddy, S/o. Malyadri Reddy, Aged about 31 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.Chennipadu Village, Ponnaluru Mandal Prakasam District. 2. Vennapusa Koti Reddy, S/o. Malyadri Reddy Aged about 27 years, R/o.Chennipadu Village, Ponnaluru Mandal, Occ: Cultivation, Prakasam District. ...Petitioners f AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary Revenue (Assignment) Department, Secretariat Buildings, At Velagapudi, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The District Collector, Ongolu, Prakasam District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanigiri, Prakasam District. 4. The Tahsildar, Ponnaluru Mandal, Prakasam District. 5. The Village Revenue Officer, Chennipadu, Ponnaluru Mandal, Prakasam 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 an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing notice dated 21.04.2025 ( receive on 24.04.2025) in Form-1 of Rule-3 under AP Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977 in respect of property an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No.357-1, an extent of Ac.4.60 cents in Sy.No.300/2 belongs to 1®' petitioner and an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No.357-2, an extent of Ac.4.36 cents in Sy.No.298/3 belongs to 2"^^ petitioner situated at Chennipadu Revenue Panchayat, Ponnaluru Mandal, Prakasam District by calling explanation from the petitioners without there being any valid reason, without mentioning details in the notice and without jurisdiction and consequentially trying to dispossess the petitioners from the said land without considering the explanation made to said notice, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principle of natural justice and also violative of Act 9 of 1977 and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300 A of Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the notice dated 21.04.2025 (receive on 24.04.2025) issued by the 4*^ respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their land in an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No.357-1, an extent of Ac.4.60 cents in Sy.No.300/2 belongs to 1®* petitioner and an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No.357-2, an extent of Ac.4.36 cents in Sy.No.298/3 belongs to 2 petitioner situated at Chennipadu Revenue Panchayat, Ponnaluru Mandal, Prakasam District by suspending the notice dated 21.04.2025 (receive 24.04.2025) issued by the 4*'^ respondent. Pending the above writ petition. nd on Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GUNDALA SIVA PRASADA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI DIVYA TEJA, ASST.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: ri APHC010364732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 18364/2025 Between; 1.VENNAPUSA CHENNA REDDY, S/0. MALYADRI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION VILLAGE, PONNALURU MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT. R/O.CHENNIPADU 2.VENNAPUSA KOTI REDDY,, S/0. MALYADRI REDDY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION PONNALURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. R/O.CHENNIPADU VILLAGE, ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL (ASSIGNMENT) VELAGAPUDI, DEPARTMENT, AMARAVATI, REVENUE SECRETARY SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS,AT ANDHRA PRADESH 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ONGOLU, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 4.THE TAHSILDAR, PONNALURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5.THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, CHENNIPADU, PONNALURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the qircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be 2 n pleased to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4TH respondent in issuing notice dated 21.04.2025 ( receive on 24.04.2025) in Form-1 of Rule-3 under AP Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977 in respect of property an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No.357-1, an extent of Ac.4.60 cents in Sy.No.300/2 belongs to 1ST petitioner and an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No.357-2, an extent of Ac.4.36 cents in Sy.No.298/3 belongs to 2ND petitioner situated at Chennipadu Revenue Panchayat, Ponnaluru Mandal, Prakasam District by calling explanation from the petitioners without there being any valid reason, without mentioning details in the notice and without jurisdiction and consequentially trying to dispossess the petitioners from the said land without considering the explanation made to said notice, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principle of natural justice and also violative of Act 9 of 1977 and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300 A of Constitution of India and consequently set- aside the notice dated 21.04.2025 (receive on 24.04.2025) issued by the 4TH respondent 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 respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their land in an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No.357-1, an extent of Ac.4.60 cents in Sy.No.300/2 belongs to 1ST petitioner and an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No.357-2, an extent of Ac.4.36 cents in Sy.No.298/3 belongs to 2ND petitioner situated at Chennipadu Revenue Panchayat, Ponnaluru Mandal, Prakasam District by suspending the notice dated 21.04.2025 (receive on 24.04.2025) issued by the 4TH respondent. Pending the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S); 1.GUNDALA SIVA PRASADA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri G.Sivaprasada Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Divya Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 5. 3 A: 2. Challenging the notices under Form-I & Form-ll dated 21.04.2025 issued under Rule 3 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, and the Rules made thereunder, the above writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that 1®‘ petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.4-00 cents in Sy.No.357-1 and Ac.4-60 cents in Sy.No.300-2. The 2^'^ petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.4-00 cents in Sy.No.357-2 and Ac.4-36 cents in Sy.No.298/3. The said agricultural lands are situated in Chennipadu Revenue Panchayat, Ponnaluru Mandala, Prakasam District. Both the petitioners succeeded to the properties. 3. Be that as it may, the notices under Form I and II (Exs.P.1 & P.2) were served on the petitioners. In Form-ll, the name of the petitioners’ father is mentioned, and in Form-1 notice, the name of one Gutti Kotaiah is mentioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in both Forms I and II, in the column of nature and date of transfer, it is mentioned as “hereditary”. Learned counsel submits that neither Form-1 nor Form-ll contained the alleged assignment made in favour of the assignee in the particulars. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment reported in Renew Wind energy (TN2) Private Limited, Delhi rep. by its Authorized Signatory Madhu Mohan Rao, M vs. State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and others^ 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, would submit that there is a defect in issuing notices under Form-1 and Form- ll. Learned AGP further submits that the 4*^ respondent will issue fresh notices under Forms I and II by duly mentioning all the particulars. 5. 6. In Renew Wind Energy {TN2) Private Limited case (referred supra), the learned Single Judge of Telangana High Court considered identical issue. ^ 2020(1) ALT 245 (S.B) 4 7. In the case at hand, Form-1 and II notices were issued under the provisions of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, and the Rules made thereunder. The notices don’t contain the details as to the assessment and the classification of the lands. In Dasari Narayana Rao vs. Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District^ in Paragraph Nos.34 and 35 it was observed as under: 8. “34. The proceedings under the 1977 Act are in the nature of civil proceedings. The conclusion that the land in question is assigned land may also be arrived at by a compelling inference preponderating from the circumstantial evidence on record. If the assignment in question is under certain Rules for the time being in force (within the meaning of this clause as employed in Section 291) of the 1977 Act); if such Rules (under which the assignment is made) enjoin a prohibition on alienation; and such statutory prohibition was in operation on the actual date of assignment, it might perhaps be an indicator justifying an inference that the land in question is an “assigned land”. For such a presumption to be legitimately drawn, the respondents must establish the date of assignment and the contemporaneous state of the Rules under which assignment was made, to legitimize the conclusion that the Rules did prohibit alienation as on the date of assignment. All these are essentially questions of facts and must first be put to the person aggrieved so as to afford him a reasonable opportunity to explain or defend his possession and ownership of the land in question, a valuable property right. A reasonable opportunity is that which informs a respondent to a show- cause notice of the facts that are asserted against him or his interest. 35. The show-cause notice dated 16.02,2002 and the final order dated 16.05.2002 come nowhere near this forensic discipline expected of a quasi Judicial Tribunal. A careless and negligent quasi judicial exercise cannot be overlooked on the ground that the authority exercising it was a Mandal Revenue Officer-cum-Deputy Collector. The contention urged on behalf of the official respondents by the learned Special Government Pleader Mr.A.Satya Prasad, appearing on behalf of the learned Advocate General, that no higher forensic competence could be expected of a M.R.O. than has been displayed in the order dated 16.05.2002, does not commend acceptance by this Court”. 9. In the case at hand, as discussed supra, nothing was mentioned in the notices issued under Form-1 and Form-11, regarding the assignment and its violation, except for stating that “hereditary”. " 2010 (4) ALT 655 5 10. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the notices issued vide Form-I and Form-ll under Rule 3 of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Rules 2007 are hereby set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. However, this order will not preclude the Tahsildar from issuing fresh notices by strictly following the Act, 1977 and the Rules made thereunder. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. 11. N. NAGAIVS?M ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTIoffoFFICER //TRUE COPY// To 1. The Principal Secretary Revenue (Assignment) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, At Velagapudi, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The District Collector, Ongolu, Prakasam District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanigiri, Prakasam District. 4. The Tahsildar, Ponnaluru Mandal, Prakasam District. 5. The Village Revenue Officer, Chennipadu Prakasam District. 6. One CC to Sri Gundala Siva Prasada Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies Amaravati, Ponnaluru Mandal, Cnr a HIGH COURT DATED:21/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 18364 OF 2025 §( 0 il AUG 2025 /Co ^ ^5- ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS