APHC010124842019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION N Between: 1. SHAIK BABU SAHEB, S/o. SHAIK BASHA SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: CULTIVATION, R/o.DOOR No.1/648, VEERAMUSTIPALYAM, JAYARAMARAO STREET, SRIKALAHASTI TOWN, CHITTOOR DIST. 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS REVENUE DEPT, (ASSIGNMENTS WING) SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ( ASSIGNMENTS WING), CHITTOOR DIST., CHITTOOR. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. THE THASILDAR, THOTAMBEDU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mr.T.C. KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 5505 of 2019 SHAIK BABU SAHEB, S/o. SHAIK BASHA SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: CULTIVATION, R/o.DOOR No.1/648, VEERAMUSTIPALYAM, JAYARAMARAO STREET, SRIKALAHASTI TOWN, CHITTOOR DIST. AND THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPT, (ASSIGNMENTS WING) SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ( ASSIGNMENTS WING), CHITTOOR THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR THASILDAR, THOTAMBEDU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.T.C. KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR REVENUE (AP) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA SHAIK BABU SAHEB, S/o. SHAIK BASHA SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: CULTIVATION, R/o.DOOR No.1/648, VEERAMUSTIPALYAM, JAYARAMARAO STREET, SRIKALAHASTI ...PETITIONER PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPT, (ASSIGNMENTS WING) SECRETARIAT THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ( ASSIGNMENTS WING), CHITTOOR THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR THASILDAR, THOTAMBEDU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 The Court made the following Order: The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by an order dated 02.04.2007 passed by the 4th respondent in resuming the subject matter land of an extent of Ac.2.00 cents situated in Survey No.285/2 P of Thottambedu Village. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the said extent of land was assigned to the petitioner’s father vide DKT Patta No.195/4/92 dated 31.08.1982 and during the life time of the petitioner’s father, the revenue officials granted a Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed. He submits that after the death of the petitioner’s father, being the successor of the subject matter property / land, the petitioner carried on cultivation by raising dry crops. He submits that while that being the position, the 4th respondent and other officials started interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject matter land and on enquiry, it was informed that the DKT patta granted to the petitioner’s father was cancelled long back and therefore, the petitioner can no longer be permitted to continue the cultivation in the subject matter land. Under the said circumstances, he submits that the petitioner made further enquiries and after constant persuasion, the 4th respondent furnished a copy of the Proceedings dated 02.04.2007 impugned in the present writ petition. He submits that the Proceedings dated 02.04.2007 were passed without issuing any notice, much less due opportunity to the petitioner and as such the same is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 3 3. The learned counsel further contends that in fact, the said proceedings were issued after the death of the petitioner’s father on 26.01.2001 and the same are passed against a dead person are non-est in the eye of Law. He further submits that the stand taken by the respondent No.4 in the counter- affidavit to the effect that notices sent to the Village Revenue Officer, Thottambedu could not be served as the assignees are not residing in the village and therefore, the notice was served by substitute method of fixing the same on a stick and planted in the land in question, is not tenable. If the original assignee i.e., the father of the petitioner died in 2001, the question of serving of a notice, much less attempt to serve the same on him as sought to be explained in the counter-affidavit does not arise at all. Be that as it may. He submits that in similar circumstances, a learned Judge of this Court, set aside the very same proceedings dated 02.04.2007 in respect of the lands which are situated in Survey No.285/3 vide Orders 21.11.2022 in W.P.No.16133 of 2015. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel while placing reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Dodda Narasimhaiah v. District Collector and Ors.,1 urges to allow the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, Mr.Dilip Naik, learned Assistant Government Pleader made submissions with reference to the averments made in the counter-affidavit and sought to sustain the impugned proceedings. He submits that after following the due procedure by issuing appropriate notices, the 1 2007 (5) ALD 191 4 Resumption Orders dated 02.04.2007 were passed and thereafter, the subject matter land was handed over to the Municipal Commissioner, Sri Kalahasthi vide Proceedings dated 01.10.2007 for public purpose i.e., maintenance of Solid Waste Management Yard. He also denies the averments made in the reply-affidavit to the effect that the petitioner is in possession of the subject matter property and the submission that the petitioner is carrying on cultivation. He also submits that the writ petition was filed 12 years after passing of the resumption orders and is not maintainable. He further submits that the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. He, however, on instructions submits that no appeal has been preferred against the orders of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16133 of 2015 dated 21.11.2022. 5. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. At the outset, it may be appropriate to note that the Proceedings dated 02.04.2007 impugned in the writ petition were issued after the death of the petitioner’s father on 26.01.2001. From a perusal of the impugned proceedings, it would appear that prior to cancellation of the assignments pursuant to the impugned proceedings, Notice dated 10.03.2007 was sought to be served through the Village Revenue Officer, Thottambedu and as the whereabouts of the assignees are not known, he appears to have fixed the notices on stick and planted the same in the subject matter lands. Such a procedure adopted by the revenue authorities was not approved by the learned Judge in Dodda Narasimhaiah’s case referred to supra. In the 5 said case, the argument advanced by the learned Government Pleader was that the writ petitioner refused to receive the notice issued under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act and as such, the same was displayed in accordance with the relevant provisions duly making necessary endorsements. The learned Judge, while noting that the record discloses that a stick was erected in the acquired land and the notice was tied to it, held that such a course was held to be untenable and allowed the writ petition. Be that as it may. 6. As noted earlier, a learned Judge of this Court in W.P.No.16133 of 2015 while observing that the authorities have sent a notice to the wrong address and straightaway passed orders dated 02.04.2007, set aside the same with liberty to issue a notice afresh and to pass orders, after following due procedure as prescribed under Law. As no writ appeal appears to have been filed against the said order, which is in respect of the adjacent lands, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned proceedings in the light of the above referred decision. At this juncture, the learned Assistant Government Pleader reiterates that the subject matter land has already been handed over to the Municipality, Sri Kalahasthi. However, no material is placed before this Court, as to whether after handing over of the subject matter land, any developmental activities in connection with the Solid Waste Management Yard have been undertaken. Therefore, this Court, more particularly in the light of the interim order dated 23.04.2019, deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: 6 1 ) The impugned proceedings dated 02.04.2007 are set aside. 2) The 4th respondent is at liberty to issue fresh notice to the petitioner to the address mentioned in the cause title of the writ petition under proper acknowledgment and pass appropriate orders by following due procedure as contemplated under Law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 3) Till appropriate orders are passed, the status quo in respect of the subject matter land existing as on today shall be maintained. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, all pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA BLV Dt.31.12.2025 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA W.P.No.5505 of 2019 Date: 31.12.2025 BLV