APHC010354022018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 16610 OF 2018 Between: 1. k. venkataramanamma, K. Venkataramanamma, W/o. K. Ramakrishna @ Nagaraju, Aged 51 years, R/o. Mukthapuram Village, Kanaganapalli Mandal, Anantapur District Anantapur. ...Petitioner AND 1. STATE OF AP, The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Revenue (Assignment.V) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. Guntur. 2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Gollapudi, Vijayawada 3. The District Collector, Anantapur. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, Anantapur District 5. The Tahsildar, Rapthadu Mandal, Anantapur District 6. M Narayana, S/o. M. Peddanna, Aged major, R/o. R. Kotnapalli Village, Ramagiri Mandal, Anantapur District ...Respondents 2 VS,J W.P.No.16610 of 2018 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 toto issue a writ of mandamus challenging the Memo.No.22633/Assn.V(2)/2012, Rev. (Assignment) Department, Dt.14,03.2018 issued by the 1st respondent in ordering cancellation of assignment made in favour of petitioner in respect of land in Sy.No.140-9P to an extent of Ac.4-00 cents situated at Rapthadu Village and Mandal, Anantapur District without issuing any notice, without affording any opportunity, without conducting any enquiry and without having any jurisdiction is illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 suspend the Memo.No.22633/Assn.V(2)/2012, Rev. (Assignment) Department, Dt.14.03.2018 issued by the 1st respondent by restraining the respondents from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioner's land in Sy.No.140-9P to an extent of Ac.4-00 cents situated at Rapthadu Village and Mandal, Anantapur District pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to receive the counter copy on record by allowing the leave petition in WP.No. 16610 of 2018, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 3 VS,J W.P.No.16610 of 2018 may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 01/05/2018 passed in I.A.No. 1 of 2018 in W.P.No. 16610 of 2018 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 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 may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner in the Writ Petition No.16610 of 2018 to file reply affidavit against the counter filed by the respondent no.6 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: N ASWARTHA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (AP) Counsel for the Respondents:JADA SRAVAN KUMAR The Court made the following 4 VS,J W.P.No.16610 of 2018 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue a writ of mandamus challenging the Memo.No.22633/Assn.V(2)/2012, Rev. (Assignment) Department, Dt.14,03.2018 issued by the 1st respondent in ordering cancellation of assignment made in favour of petitioner in respect of land in Sy.No.140-9P to an extent of Ac.4-00 cents situated at Rapthadu Village and Mandal, Anantapur District without issuing any notice, without affording any opportunity, without conducting any enquiry and without having any jurisdiction is illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same....” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) Originally the land in Sy.No.140-9P to an extent of Ac.No.4.00 cents situated at Rapthadu Village and Mandal, Anantapur District, was assigned vide DAR Dis.No.19/1413, Dt.30.07.2003, in favour of the petitioner in the year 2003 by the then Tahsildar, Rapthadu Village. The said assignment was made under category of Surrendered Naxalite Scheme. Since the date of the assignment, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land by cultivating the same and raising crops. After due enquiry the 4th respondent also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds. Thereafter, the petitioner’s name was mutated in the 1-B Adangal. 5 VS,J W.P.No.16610 of 2018 b) While the things stood us, the 1st respondent issued orders vide Memo.No.22633/Assn.V(2)/2012, Rev. (Assignment) Department, Dt.14.03.2018, restoring the land in Sy.No.140-9 to an extent of Ac.3-00 cents while cancelling the assignment made in favour of the petitioner, without issuing any notice, without conducting any enquiry, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner and without having any jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the said Memo.No.22633/Assn.V(2)/2012, Rev. (Assignment) Department, Dt.14.03.2018, the present writ petition is filed. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission on 01.05.2018, this Court passed the following interim order: “….the parties are directed to maintain status-quo, obtaining as on today.” 4. Respondent No.5 has filed a counter-affidavit duly admitting the facts as stated by the petitioner. However, it is stated as follows: a) The land in Sy.No.140-9 to an extent of Ac.6.00 cents situated in Rapthadu Village is a Government land and the unofficial respondent No.6 herein and Venkatesh Naik were granted assignment to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents each, vide DAR. Dis. No.19/1405 dated 05.10.1995. Subsequently, Sri Sake Pothanna @ Haribushan and Smt.Venkataramanamnia W/o K. Nagaraju were also granted assignment to an extent of Ac.2.00 cents and Ac.4.00 respectively in the same land vide DAR.Dis.No.19/1413 dated 30.07.2003 6 VS,J W.P.No.16610 of 2018 without cancelling the assignment granted in favour of the unofficial respondent herein. Further, the land had been assigned more than the extent existing in the said survey number. b) It is further stated that the unofficial respondent submitted a representation stating that he was a surrendered Naxelite, was assigned an extent of Ac.3.00 cents, was in cultivation from 1995 to 2003 by raising Sapota plant. The said land was subsequently assigned to a third party, i.e., the petitioner herein, without cancelling his earlier assignment, when he was under imprisonment by the Government of Karnataka for a period of six years in connection with old cases registered against him. After returning from jail, he found that the land assigned to him, was again assigned by the M.R.O to others irregularly and requested the revenue officials to solve the issue. c) As the subsequent assignment made in favour of the petitioner was without cancelling the assignment made in favour of the unofficial respondent and as the subsequent assignment was made irregularly without sub-division, as such, the Tahsildar submitted proposals for cancellation of the subsequent assignment to the District Collector, Ananthapuramu through the RDO Ananthapuramu. The Tahsildar, Rapthadu, issued proceedings under Section 145 (1) of Cr.P.C to both the parties i.e., the petitioner and the unofficial respondent herein, restraining them from entering into the subject land vide proceeding in M.C.No.60 of 2010, dated 27.12.2010. 7 VS,J W.P.No.16610 of 2018 d) Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner filed Crlp.No.1705 of 2011 before this Court. Initially, the said proceedings were suspended by this Court and, finally the said proceedings were set aside. Thereafter, the District Collector, Ananthapuramu through the Special Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P. submitted a report to the Government for cancellation of irregular assignment made in favour of the petitioner, duly enclosing the connected records pertaining to the above case. The Government, after careful examination of the matter and upon perusal of the entire record made available, ordered restoration of the land to the first assignee i.e, the unofficial respondent herein, by cancelling the subsequent irregular assignment made in favour of the petitioner vide Memo dated 14.03.2018, which is impugned in the present writ petition, and, as such, requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 5. The unofficial respondent No.6 has also filed a counter-affidavit on similar lines. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.6, wherein it is stated that, pursuant to the representation made by the unofficial respondent, the District Collector initially addressed a letter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram on 01.04.2015, directing him to order an alternative assignment in favour of the unofficial respondent herein, pursuant to the representation made by the unofficial respondent seeking resumption of the land in his favour. However, 8 VS,J W.P.No.16610 of 2018 as the unofficial respondent insisted upon restoration of the land which was assigned to him way back in the year 1995, he was requested to submit his remarks on the above said matter and, thereafter, the said memo has been issued. 7. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner that the unofficial respondent was also assigned another extent of Ac.5.17 cents of land in Sy.No.209/3, Ramagiri Village and Mandal and in view of the same, requested this Court to allow the writ petition, alleging that the unofficial respondent is not entitled to any further assignment. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the impugned memo. 9. On a perusal of the impugned memo, as rightly contended by the petitioner, it is an admitted fact that no notice was issued to the petitioner calling for an explanation before cancelling her assignment or affording her an opportunity of hearing. On the other hand, based on a representation made by the unofficial respondent on 03.07.2017, the assignment was cancelled on the ground that the subsequent assignment made in favour of the petitioner in the year 2003 was an irregular assignment. 10. The admitted facts are that, initially, the assignment was granted in favour of the unofficial respondent in the 1995. While he was in prison, for a period of six years, the official respondents, without even conducting any 9 VS,J W.P.No.16610 of 2018 enquiry, granted assignment of the same land in favour of the petitioner in the year 2003, admittedly without cancelling the assignment granted in favour of the unofficial respondent. However, it is the responsibility of the official respondents to conduct an enquiry before assigning any land in favour of the assignees. 11. In the present case, It can be observed that, on an application made by the unofficial respondent alleging that he was assigned an extent of Ac.3-00 cents in Sy.No.140/9, situated in Rapthadu Village and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, on 05.10.1995 and that the same was subsequently reassigned in favour of the petitioner herein, the impugned memo dated 14.03.2018 has been issued by the 1st respondent. This Court is of the opinion that the assignment granted in favour of the petitioner in the year 2003 is irregular and that the cancellation of the same by the official respondents by way of the impugned memo is also irregular, as no enquiry was conducted by issuing notice to the petitioner. The entire dispute has been created by the official respondent No.5 i.e., the Tahsidar without verifying the records. 12. In view of the same, the impugned Memo No.22633/Assn.V(2)/2012, Rev. (Assignment) Department, dated 14.03.2018, issued by the 1st respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration of the said issue by issuing appropriate notices to both the petitioner and the unofficial respondent and pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to both of them, duly taking into 10 VS,J W.P.No.16610 of 2018 consideration the observations made by this Court hereinabove. The said process shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. With the above directions, the Writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 22.09.2026 KGR/JS