1 APHC010187092023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 10285/2023 Between: 1. CHANDA KONDAIAH, S/O. VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.2-110, NEHRU NAGAR, OPP. PAPA RICE MILL, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE REVENUE DIVISION, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 5. THE TAHSILDHAR, SINGARAYAKONDA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 6. BHAVANASI VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O.CHANDRA SEKHAR, R/O.OPPOSITE STREET OF PACHIYUGANDHAR COMPLEX, SINGARAYAKONDA, PRAKASAM 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 2 pleased topleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring action of the 5th respondent in passing impugned orders in Rc.B.No.171/2021, dt.25.05.2022 as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of Natural Justice, violation of Article 300-A of Constitution of India and violation of provisions of A.P. Assigned lands (POT), Act, 1977 and consequently restore the names of the legal heirs of original assignee in the Revenue Records with respect to land of an extent Ac.1.90 cents in Sy.No.661/2, situated at Somarajupalli village, Singarayakonda Mandal, Prakasam District by setting aside the impugned orders passed by the 5th respondent in Rc.B.No.171/2021, dt.25.05.2022 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to suspend the impugned orders passed by the 5th respondent in Rc.B.No.171/2021, dt.25.05.2n22 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C SUBODH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.10285 of 2023 ORDER:- The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring action of the 5th respondent in passing impugned orders in Rc.B.No.171/2021, dt.25.05.2022 as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of Natural Justice, violation of Article 300-A of Constitution of India and violation of provisions of A.P. Assigned lands (POT), Act, 1977 and consequently restore the names of the legal heirs of original assignee in the Revenue Records with respect to land of an extent Ac.1.90 cents in Sy.No.661/2, situated at Somarajupalli village, SingarayakondaMandal, Prakasam District by setting aside the impugned orders passed by the 5th respondent in Rc.B.No.171/2021, dt.25.05.2022 and pass…” 2. Heard Sri C.Subodh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The 5th respondent-Tahsildar has resumed the land to an extent of Ac. 1.90 cents in Sy No:661/2 vide proceedings in Rc.B.No:171/2021 dated 25.05.2022 under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of A.P.Assigned lands (POT) Act 1977 (Prohibition of Transfer) Act 1977 (herein after for short called as Act) on the ground that, it was determined that the original assignee or her legal heirs were not is possession of the assigned and some other persons are in possession of the assigned land and thereby the original assignee has contravened the Section of 3 of the Act, consequently, it made the respondents to resume the land under Section 4 of the Act. 4. The said order dated 25.05.2022 was under challenge in the present writ petition on the following grounds (1) The original assignee did not transfer the land to any third party and there is no prior notice was issued before the issuance of the impugned proceedings dated 25.05.2022 and notice under Form-I and Form-II was served both the assignee and the transferor as required under Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 (for short hereafter called as rules) and the notice was 4 served on the dead person. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned proceedings. 5. The Tahsildar/Respondent No.5 has filed the counter affidavit and reiterated the observations made in the impugned order stating that a notice was served on the deceased’s son and the land that assigned to the original assignee has been resumed duly following the procedure as outlined in the act and the rules, the petitioner having received the notice has not submitted any explanation in response to the show cause notice and both the notices as contemplated under rule 3 of Rules 2007, hence prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition as it is devoid of merit. 6. Admittedly, as per the counter averments, the 5th respondent-Tahsildar has not issued notices as prescribed in the Rules 2007. The Form-I was issued to the original assignee and the Form-II notice was issued to the purchaser. Rule 3 of rules 2007 specified that both Form-I and Form-II must be served on both the assignee and the purchaser, which is sufficient to set aside the impugned proceedings as it invalidates the entire process of resumption order. As per the ratio laid in the case M/s. Sudalagunta Sugars Limited Vs. The Joint Collector, Chittor and Another reported in 2017 (2) ALD 529 a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh categorically held that the both the Form-I and Form-II shall be served to both the assignee and the purchaser under Rule 3 of rules 2007. 7. Since Form-I and Form-II was not served on both the assignee and the purchaser, the order impugned is not sustainable under law, accordingly it is hereby set aside. However the respondents are at liberty to take necessary steps for the resumption of land by following due procedure of law on the touchstone of the provisions of the Act and the Rule. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of, however no order as to costs. 5 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending and the interim order granted earlier, if any stands closed. ____________________________ TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO,J Dated 29.01.2026 SSA