APHC010558732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 28792/2025 Between: 1. R. VASANTAMMA,, W/O. R. NAGARAJA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 5-75, KURAPALLI, ARADIGUNTA VILLAGE, PUNGANURU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, (REVENUE DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MADANAPALLI DIVISION, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PUNGANURU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): This Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioners for the following relief: “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the impugned notice vide R.O.C vide Roc. B/196/2022 dt. 15.08.2023 to the petition in respect of the land being an extent of Ac 5.39 cents in Sy. No. 254-2 situated at Aradigunta Revenue Village, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District which is as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and Violation of article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 2007 and rules made there under and consequently set aside the same….” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being a landless poor person, was granted DKT patta bearing DKT No.174 for an extent of Ac.5.39 cents in Sy. No.254-2 situated in Aradigunta Revenue Conduching away Village, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District, after conducting detailed enquiry by the 4th respondent. It is further submitted that the petitioner's name was duly mutated in the revenue records and Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds were also issued in her favour. He further submits that on 13.10.2025, the 4th respondent/Tahsildar visited the subject land and directed the petitioner to vacate the land immediately, and also orally informed her that a notice dated 15.08.2023 had been issued under Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the notice under Rule 3 was issued only in Form-l, which is contrary to the observations made by this Court in M/s. Sudalagunta Sugar Limited vs. Joint Collector, Chittoor and others, reported in 2017 (2) ALD 529. 5. This Court, vide order dated 21.11.2025, directed the concerned officer to appear before this Court along with the relevant documents. In compliance with the said order, the 4th respondent has personally appeared before this Court along with the records. However, the 4th respondent is unable to submit any explanation with regard to the issue in question. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, relying on the record, submits that even prior to issuance of the impugned notice dated 15.08.2023, the respondents had passed a resolution on 20.09.2022. However, on perusal of the said record, it is evident that the respondents have not followed the procedure mandated by this Court in the judgment referred to above. It is further surprising that, despite passing orders on 20.09.2022, the respondents are unable to explain why they again initiated action by issuing the Form-I notice dated 15.08.2023. 7. The learned Government Pleader for the respondents requests to set aside both the orders dated 15.08.2023 and 20.09.2022, and the matter may be remanded to the authorities to initiate fresh action strictly in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Act and the provisions of law. 8. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 15.08.2023 and the impugned proceedings dated 20.09.2022 are set aside, and the matter is remanded to the 4th respondent to initiate fresh action in accordance with the Act and to pass appropriate orders, duly following the observations made by this Court in M/s. Sudalagunta Sugar Limited vs. Joint Collector, Chittoor and others, reported in 2017 (2) ALD 529. 9. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH Dt:28.11.2025 klk