APHC010107542020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 6546/2020 Between: Gandapu Parameswara Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M R K CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER:- Heard Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. Challenging the order of the 3rd respondent/Tahsildar dated 23.01.2020 in Roc.No.38/2020/(A) under Sections 3 & 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007, the present writ petition is filed. 2 3. It is contended that the petitioner has purchased the subject property which is an extent of Ac.0.50 cents situated in R.S.No.49 of Singavaram Village, Dendulur Mandal, West Godavari District, under a sale deed dated 25.04.1985 from one Yerlapati Jakaraiah who in turn purchased the same from one Shaik Masthan under sale deed dated 25.04.1984. It is contended that the 3rd respondent/Tahsildar issued notice in Form – II to the petitioner to show cause as to why the land should not be resumed, since the same is in violation of conditions of the assignment made in favour of Shaik Masthan. It is contended that in reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner has filed his explanation on 21.01.2020. However, the 3rd respondent passed the order dated 22.01.2020 without referring to the said explanation filed by the petitioner. Though the petitioner requested for personal hearing, it has not been considered by the 3rd respondent. None of the contentions raised by the petitioner were answered by the 3rd respondent, thus the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for set aside of the order of the 3rd respondent. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contends that the order that has been passed by the 3rd respondent is in accordance with the procedure provided under Section 4 (1) of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) (Amendment) Act, 2007, after the due notice to the assignee and the transferee. 5. Considered the rival submissions. 6. As noted from the impugned order, the Tahsildar did not refer to any of the objections filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice. The 3 factum of filing of the explanation was referred to in the reference column and in the body of the order, but the content of the explanation was not referred to. That apart, there is an error in mentioning the Roc.No. in the impugned proceedings which was mentioned as 33/2020/(SA) whereas the Form II notices were issued in respect of the Roc.No.38/2020/(SA). 7. A perusal of the case record produced before the Court shows that there is an order in Telugu dated 23.01.2020 in Roc. No.38/2020/(SA), which is after passing of the impugned order, wherein the Tahsildar has communicated to the petitioner that the objections of the petitioner do not merit consideration, thereby rejected the objections filed by the petitioner. The second order is the order impugned in the writ petition, dated 22.01.2020 resuming the land and consequently directing the Revenue Inspector of the Mandal to take possession of the land. The order of resumption preceded the order rejecting the objections; in normal circumstances, the order rejecting the objections should precede the final order. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the matter requires fresh consideration by the Tahsildar, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, the order impugned, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 4th respondent, directing the 4th respondent to pass orders afresh after considering the objections of the petitioner. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall be given opportunity of personal hearing in the matter. 4 9. The writ petition is allowed with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:28.01.2025 ANI 5 220 THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No.6546 of 2020 Date:28.01.2025 ANI