t' APHC010382022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATl^ WRIT PETITION NO: 19655 OF 2025 Between: K. Savithri, W/o, K. Nagabhushana, Aged about 32 years, Occ; Housewife, R/o.D.No. 1-200-1, Regatipalli Village, District. Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur ...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. ...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 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.2.03 cents in Sy.No.472-4 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 4 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 writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 4*^ respondent not to dispossess Petitioner from the agricultural land an extent of Ac.2.03 cents in Sy.No.472-4 situated at Regatipalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur District by suspending the proceedings issued by the 4*^" 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: APHC010382022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY. THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19655/2025 Between: 1.K SAVITHRI, W/0. K NAGABHUSHANA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.1-200-1, REGATIPALLI VILLAGE, OC HLOUSEWIFE DHARMAVARAM MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, BUILDINGS. DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. REVENUE SECRETARIAT 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANANTAPUR. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHARMAVARAM, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, DHARMAVARAM MANDAL DISTRICT. 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 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.2.03 cents in Sy.No.472-4 situated at Regatipalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur District under BSO 15(12)(3), without conducting enquiry and beyond his jurisdiction and contrary 2 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 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.2.03 cents in Sy.No.472-4 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.KNARSI 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. th Assailing the proceedings issued by the 4 Rc.No. 142/2025/A, dated 10.06.2025 (Ex.PI) and resuming the land of extent of Ac.2.03 cents in Sy.No.472-4, as illegal and arbitrary, the above writ petition has been filed. 2. respondent vide an 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitionerwas assigned with DKT Patta for an extent of Ac.2.03 cents in Sy.No.472-4 of Regatipalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur District by the then 3 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.45. The petitioner is directed to submit the records 24.04.2025 at 11.00 AM. The petitioner submitted an 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. on 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. 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. 5. 6. A 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 on 10.04.2025, and the petitioner submitted an explanation on 24.04.2025. 8. In the proceedings impugned, the 4*'" i 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. respondent, as per the explanation 2. The assignee not brought the land D.A.R.Dis.No. to assigned to him/her vide and as such it is established that, there is infringement of condition No.1 of the D.Patta condition. File No 3. Though assignment assigned 1B.No.2036 which is irregular. 4. Though the assignment committee i grant is made irregularly in the name of the assignee. 5. The assignee is not a Sivaijamadar. The 4'" respondent, 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.0.15(12)(3). It is very unfortunate and a ; did not even consider the explanation submitted was not made, the assignee possessed and IS not approved the beneficiary, the 9. 10. sorry state of affairs that the 4*^ respondent —J by the petitioner. 11. In the first place, the show-cause notice doesn't contain the alleged breaches. Unless the authority mentions the breaches, if any, 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 authority points out the alleged misdeeds or violations. of the authority, unless the / ’'f ■- 5 m In Nasir Ahmad vs. Assistant Custodian General, Evacuee Property, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and Ors', the Hon' ble Apex Court held thus: 12. “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.” In UMC Technologies Private Limited vs. Food Corporation of India and Ors^ the Hon"ble Apex Court held thus: 13. “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. ” In Dasari Narayana Rao and another vs. Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer and others\ the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held thus: 14. “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 preponerating from the circumstantial evidence on record. If the conclusion that the Rules did ' (1980) 3 see 1 ^ (2021) 2 see 551 ^(2010)6 ALT 655 6 prohibit aiienation as on the date of assignment. AH these essentiaiiy questions of facts and must first be put to the person aggrieved so as to afford him a reasonabie opportunity to expiain or defend his possession and ownership of the iand in question, a vaiuabie property right. A reasonabie opportunity is that which informs a respondent to a show-cause notice of the facts that are asserted against him or his interest. are 35. The show-cause notice dated 16.2.2002 and the finai order dated 16.5.2002 come nowhere near this forensic discipline expected of a quasi judicial Tribunal. A careiess and negiigent quasi judicial exercise cannot be overlooked on the ground that the authority exercising it was 4 .. a Mandat Revenue Officer-cum-Deputy Coiiector. The contentionurged on behatf of the officiai respondents by the teamed Speciat Government Pteader Mr. A. Satya Prasad, appearing on behatf of the teamed Advocate Generat, that no higher forensic competence coutd be expected of a M.R.O. than has been dispiayed in the order dated 16.5.2002, does not commend acceptance by this Court.” \ 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 vide Rc.No.142/2025/A, dated 10.06.2025 (Ex.P1), referred supra, are not part of either the show cause notice or 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, the 4'^ respondent issued impugned proceedings vide Rc.No. 142/2025/A, dated 10.06.2025 (Ex.P1) without application of mind to the fact situation. 15. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is The proceedings impugned vide Rc.No. 142/2025/A, dated 10.06^025 (Ex.P1) are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the 4^'^ respondent. The learned 4*^ respondent, if necessary, may issue a fresh 16. allowed. 7 notice setting out the irregularities and alleged illegalities, enabling petitioner to give a proper explanation. Thereupon, the 4' follow the Principles of Natural Justice by providing to the petitioner, and pass a reasoned order. The petitioner is at liberty to submit new defences, including the jurisdiction. If the petitioner pleads the issue of jurisdiction, the learned 4^^ respondent shall address the same and pass a reasoned order. No costs. the respondent shall opportunity of hearing an Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR 1 mr- SECTION OFFICER To. T The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. The District Collector, Anantapur District, Anantapur. ^ 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmavaram, Anantapur Districtr- 4. The Tahsildar, Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur Districts 5. One CC to Sri K. Narsi Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:31/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 19655 OF 2025 Of % 10 SEP 2025 X rri/ O y Current Seciioo ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS