APHC010506172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 25942 of 2025 Between: 1. P SUREKHA, W/O NAGABHUSHANAM, AGE 40 YEARS R/O GULZARPETA, ANATHAPURUM TOWN AND MANDAL ANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANATHAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANATHAPURAMU. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANATHAPURAMU REVENUE DIVISION ANATHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, ANATHAPURAMU RURAL MANDAL ANANTHAPURAMU 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 to declare the impunged Order of the 4th Respondent Tahsildar, Anathapuramu Rural Mandal in Rc.No B/420/2025 Dated 28.8.2025 thereby illegally resumed the Petitioners private land in Sy No 136-3 an extent of Ac 3.46 cents of Kurugunta Village, Anathapurumu Rural Mandal, Anthapuram District without issuing mandatory notices and without affording opportunity in contravention of law which is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and violative of Articles 300-A, 14, 21 of the 2 Constitution of India and consequently setaside the aforesaid impunged Order in Rc.No B/420/2025 Dated 28.8.2025 and direct the Respondents not to interefere with Petitioners pepaceful possession and ownership of the land in Sy No 136-3 an extent of Ac 3.46 cents of Kurugunta Village, Anathapurumu Rural Mandal, Anthapuram District. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the impugned Order of the 4th Respondent Tahsildar, Anathapuramu Rural Mandal in Rc.No B/420/2025 Dated 28.8.2025 thereby illegally resumed the Petitioners private land in Sy No 136-3 an extent of Ac 3.46 cents of Kurugunta Village, Anathapurumu Rural Mandal, Anthapuram District without issuing mandatory notices and without affording opportunity in contravention of law which is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and violative of Articles 300- A, 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently setaside the aforesaid impunged Order in Rc.No B/420/2025 Dated 28.8.2025 and direct the Respondents not to interefere with Petitioners pepaceful possession and ownership of the land in Sy No 136-3 an extent of Ac 3.46 cents of Kurugunta Village, Anathapurumu Rural Mandal, Anthapuram District and pass such other order or orders ….” 2. Assailing the notice dated 28.08.2025, the present Writ Petition is filed on the ground that the said notice was issued in contravention of Rule 3 of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Rules, 2007 (for short, hereinafter called as ‘the Rules’). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Sudalagunta Sugars Ltd., Chittoor District, A.P. Vs. Joint Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District and another reported in 2017(2) ALD 529 and Alavala Veera Reddy and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in 2021(6) ALD 4 (AP) in support of the aforesaid contention. 4 4. This Court in both the judgments held that whenever an action under Section 4 of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, is initiated by the District Collector or the authorized officer, the authority is required to issue notices in Form-I and Form-II to the assignee and transferee. 5. As seen from the impugned proceedings, it indicates that the Form-I and Form-II notices were issued to both the assignee and transferee. 6. As seen from the written instructions placed by the learned State Counsel dated 20.09.2025, the notices that were not issued to the assignee and transferee, as envisaged under Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned notice is hereby set aside and the respondents are at liberty to issue fresh notice to the writ petitioner as per the aforesaid Rules. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 26.09.2025 siva 5 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.25942 of 2025 Date: 26.09.2025 siva