APHCOI 0378872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY . TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19477 OF onoK / QMS Between: T Lingareddy, W/o. T Srinivasa Reddy, Aged about 47 R/o.D.No.2-21/3, Regatipalli Village District. years, Occ: Housewife, 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, 4. The Tahsildar, Dharmavaram Mandal Anantapur District. 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 pleased to issue may be a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus aggrieved by the action of the Respondent No. issuing proceedings vide Rc. No. 142/2025/A dated of petitioner's land 4 in 10.06.2025 for resumption an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.457-7 situated at Regatipalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur District under BSO I 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 the 4th respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from the above 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 he pleased to direct the 4th respondent not to dispossess Petitioner from land an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.457-7 situated at Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur District by suspending issued by the 4th respondent vide Rc.No. 142/2025/A dated 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: same and further direct said land. the agricultural Regatipalli Village, the proceedings 10.06.2025, APHC010378872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SMB [33311 WEDNESDAY.THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19477/2025 Between: 1.T LINGAREDDY, , W/0. T SRINIVASA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O.D.NO.2-21/3, REGATIPALLI VILLAGE, DHARMAVARAM MANUAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT SECRETARY, BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANANTAPUR. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHARMAVARAM, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, DHARMAVARAM MANUAL, 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 issuing proceedings vide Rc.No. 142/2025/A dated 10.06.2025 for resumption of petitioner's land an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.457-7 situated at Regatipalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur District under BSO 15(12)(3), without conducting enquiry and beyond his jurisdiction and contrary in I 2 1 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 4th 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 petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 4th respondent not to dispossess Petitioner from the agricultural land an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.457-7 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: 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 2. th 2. Assailing the proceedings issued by the 4 respondent vide Rc.No.142/2025/A, dated 10.06.2025 (Ex.PI) and resuming the land of extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.457-7, as illegal and arbitrary, the above writ petition has been filed. an Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitionerwas assigned with DKT Patta vide DKT Patta No.DKT1754533620799942for an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.457-7 of Regatipalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur District by the then Tahsildar. The revenue authorities updated the Record of Rights and issued Form-1 B (ROR), the Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deeds. 3. 3 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.49. The petitioner is directed to submrt the records on 24.04.2025 at 11.00 AM. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 24.04.2025 (Ex.PS) by submitting the relevant documents. The 4^'^ respondent, without considering the explanation, passed the order Ex.PI resuming the land to the Government as per B.S.0.15(12)(3). 4. th 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. 5. 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. 6. 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 notice to the petitioner on 10.04.2025, and the petitioner submitted an explanation on 24.04.2025. \ / 4 \ 8. In the proceedings impugned, the 4**^ respondent, 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 not brought the land to D.A.R.Dis.No.DKTI754533620799942 File No 1607 and established that, there is infringement of condition No.1 of the D.Patta Condition. 3. The assignee family is not a BPL family. As per the of the assignee is having already 8.49 4. Though assignment was not made, the assignee possessed and assigned IB.No.2079 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. 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 by the assigned to him/her vide as such it is records, the family acres. 9. 10. sorry state of affairs that the 4‘^ respondent 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 of the authority, unless the or violations. / 5 r 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 ‘ (1980) 3 see 1 ^(2021) 2 see 551 ^ (2010) 6 ALT 655 r—. § 6 circumstantial evidence on record. If the prohibit alienation conclusion that the Rules did assignment. All these essentially questions of facts and must first be put to the person aggrieved so as to afford him a reasonable opportunity to explain defend his possession and ownership of the land in question, a valuable opportunity is that which informs a respondent to a show-cause notice of the facts that against him or his interest. as on the date of are or property right. A reasonable are asserted 35. The show-cause notice dated 16.5.2002 16.2.2002 and the final order dated come nowhere near this forensic discipline quasi judicial Tribunal. A careless and negligent cannot be overlooked expected of a quasi Judicial exercise on tha ground that the authority exercising it was a Mandat Revenue Officer-cum-Deputy Collector. The on behalf of the official respondents by the learned Pleader Mr. A. Satya Prasad, Advocate General, that contention urged Special Government appearing on behalf of the learned no higher forensic competence could be expected of a M.R.O. than has been 16.5.2002, does not displayed in the order dated commend acceptance by this Court. 15. 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, not signify the cancellation of the patta. The 4*^ The proceedings impugned do respondent passed a resumption order without the considered opinion of the Court, the 4*" proceedings vide Rc.No. 142/2025/A application of mind to the fact situation. even cancelling the patta. In respondent issued impugned dated 10.06.2025 (Ex.P1) without the facts and ci allowed. The circumstances of the proceedings impugned 10.06.2025 {Ex.P1) are hereby set aside. The case, the writ petition is dated matter is remitted to the 4**^ vide Rc.No. 142/2025/A 7 respondent. The learned 4*^ respondent, if necessary, may issue a fresh notice setting out the irregularities and alleged illegalities, enabling the petitioner to give a proper explanation. Thereupon, the 4^'' respondent shall follow the Principles of Natural Justice by providing an opportunity of hearing 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. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K.J.RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ; SECTION OFFICER To, 1. 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. 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 TF M HIGH COURT DATED:30/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 19477 OF 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS