IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURA’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 11209 OF 2025 Between: Bollina Vijaya Bhaskar, S/o. Dharmarao, Aged about 42 years, Male, R/o. Yernagudem Village, Devarapalli Mindal, East Godavari District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The District Collector, East Godavari District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvuru, East Godavari District. 4. The Tahsildar, Devarapalli Mandal, Devarapalli, East Godavari 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, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in X issuing three separate proceedings in R.O.C.No.80/2025/DT, dated 17.03.2025, thereby resumption of land in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.307-4A1W, in another an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.307- 4A1W, and also in an another extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.307-4A1 W of Yernagudem Village, Devarapalli Mandal under the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act 9 of 1977 is illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act 1 of 1973 and Rules framed thereunder and also offends Articles 14, 21 and 300 A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside three separate proceedings in R.O.C.NO.80/2025/DT, Tahsildar/respondent No.4. dated 17.03.2025 passed by the 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 grant stay of all further proceedings including resumption of the land in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.307-4A1 W, in another an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.307/4A1 W, and in an extent of Ac.1 .OOncents in Sy.No.307-4A1W of Yernagudem Village, Devarapalli Mandal, by duly suspending the orders passed by the respondent No.4 in three separate proceedings in R.O.C.No.80/2025/DT, Dated 18.03.2025 pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: A « « 1 • • • • X • • APHC010194352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 11209/2025 Between: Bollina Vijaya Bhaskar ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.11209 of 2025 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: ‘‘..to issue a writ order or a direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No 4 in issuing three separate proceedings in R O C No.80/2025/DT, dated 17.03.2025 thereby resumption of land in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.307-4A1W in another an extent of Ac. 1.00 cents in Sy.No.3074A1W and also in an another extent of Ac . 1.00 cents in Sy.No.307-4A1W of Yernagudem Village Devarapalli Mandal under the provisions of A P Assigned Lands Prohibition of Transfer Act 9 of 1977 is illegal irregular arbitrary violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act 1 of 1973 and Rules framed thereunder and also offends Articles 14 21 and 300 A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside three separate proceedings in ROC No 80/2025/DT dated 1703 2025 passed by the Tahsildar/respondent No 4...” 2. The case of the petitioner is that the is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 3.00 cents in Sy. No. 307-4A1W of Yernagudem Village, Devarapalli Mandal. The said land was obtained on lease for a period of 99 years through 3 documents executed by Vallabhani Bhapiraju Pothula Seshagiri Rao, and Kattam Anjaneyulu in favor of the petitioner's father for lawful consideration. Since then, the petitioner's father had been iin possession and enjoyment of the subject property without interruption. The Government issued pattas to the original patta holders through proceedings dated 20.11.1990 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. After the demise of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner has been in continuous possession and cultivation of the said property. While things stood thus, the 4th any respondent, i.e., the Tahsildar, issued notices in Form I and II dated 17.02.2025 under Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) 2007, to the original pattadars and the petitioner, alleging that land is liable to be resumed under Section 4 of the Act, and directing the petitioner and the original patta holders Rules, the to submit their explanation within 15 days. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits pursuance of the notice issued by the 4th 17.02.2025, both the petitioner and the submitted a detailed that, in respondent dated original patta holders representation/explanation on 20.02.2025. 4 However, without considering the said representation, the 4th respondent passed three separate resumption orders dated 17.03.2025, alleging that land admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 1.00 cent each was assigned to certain individuals in the year 1990, as such any transfer/alienation of assigned land is contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. He further submits that the pattas were issued under Section 14 of Act 1 of 1973. As per Section 14(5) of the said Act, the Tahsildar is required to pass orders only after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. He further submits that the 4th respondent passed the resumption orders without complying with this mandatory requirement under Section 14(5) of the Act, since the orders were passed under Act 1 of 1973, the petitioner has the right to prefer an appeal before the tribunal constituted under Section 20 of the said Act. He further submits that the 4*^ respondent is trying to dispossess the petitioner without following the due process of law. Hence, the present writ petition. an 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that if the respondents’ authorities intend to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession of the subject I 5 property, they will do so only in accordance with the due procedure as contemplated under the law. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents, and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition can be disposed of by directing the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the 3rd respondent, who is Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such preferring of the appeal, the 3rd respondent shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all concerned parties, in accordance with law, within a period of four (04) months. In the meanwhile, status quo obtaining as on today 6. ^ II 6 shall be maintained by both parties in respect of possession of the subject property. 7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of, with the consent of both the counsel. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S?" SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The District Collector, East Godavari District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvuru, East Godavari District. 4. The Tahsildar, Devarapalli Mandal, Devarapalli, East Godavari District. 5. One CC to SRI. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCS to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies vna r high court dateD;30/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.11209 of 2025 disposing of the writ WITHOUT COSTS petition