APHC010320582019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NOs: 14959, 14661 and 14965/2019 WRIT PETITION NO: 14959/2019 Between: 1. KAVURI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O VENUGOPALA VENKATA RATNAM, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. 1611, PEBBLE BROOK, LN.PROSPER, TX.75078, USA REP., BY GPA HOLDER AND NATURAL FATHER K VENUGOPALA VENKATA RATNAM S/O LAKSHMAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O PLOT NO.290, CHINNAVUTAPALLI, GANNAVARAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETRARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT, MACHILIPATNAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, GANNAVARAM MANDAL, KRISHNA 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 pleased topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more 2 VS,J W.P.No.14959 of 2019 & batch particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Notice in Form-II in ROC.A1.832/2019 dated 1- 09-2019 issued to the petitioner under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, (Act 9/1977) with regard to the land in an extent of Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.190/2B of Chinnavutapalli village Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District, as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of Article 14 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and wihtout jurisdiction and the notice is nonest in the eye of law, and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners land in an extent of Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.190/2B of Chinnavutapalli village Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 stay all further proceedings in pursuance of Notices in Form.II in Roc.No.A1.832/2019 dated 1-09-2019 issued to the petitioner with regard to land in an extent of Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.190/2B of Chinnavutapalli village Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2019 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 vacate the interim orders dated 27-09-2019 passed in IA.No.1/2019 in WP.No.14959/2019 and dismiss the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) WRIT PETITION NO: 14661/2019 Between: 3 VS,J W.P.No.14959 of 2019 & batch 1. K VENUGOPALA VENKATA RATNAM, S/O LAKSHMAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O PLOT NO.290, CHINNAVUTAPALLI, GANNAVARAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETRARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT, MACHILIPATNAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, GANNAVARAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRIC ...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 pleased toto issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Notices in Form.11 in ROC.A1.832/2019 dated 1-09-2019 issued to the petitioner under The Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act (Act 9/1977) with regard to the land in an extent of Ac.1.46 cents in Sy.No.190/2D, G, H, I, J, K, and -L of Chinnavutapalli village Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District, as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of Article 14 and 300 A of the Constitution of India anti wihtout jurisdiction and the notice is nonest in the eye of law, and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners land in an extent of Ac.1.46 cents in Sy.No.190/2D, G, H, I, J, K, and L of Chinnavutapalli village Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the notice issued by the 2nd respondent dated 29.08.2019 and pass 4 VS,J W.P.No.14959 of 2019 & batch IA NO: 2 OF 2019 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 vacate the interim orders dated: 25.09.2018\ passed in IA.NO. 1/2019 in W.P.No.14661/2019 and dismiss the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) WRIT PETITION NO: 14965/2019 Between: 1. KALAGARA VARALAKSHMI, W/O VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO.201, PRASANTHI APARTMENT, SATHAVAHANA NAGAR, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETRARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT, MACHILIPATNAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, GANNAVARAM MANDAL, KRISHNA 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 pleased toto issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Notices in Form-II in ROC.A1.832/2019 dated 1-09-2019 issued to the petitioner under the Andhra 5 VS,J W.P.No.14959 of 2019 & batch Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, (Act 9/1977) with regard to the land in an extent of Ac.0.41 cents in Sy.No.190/2A of Chinnavutapalli village Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District, as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of Article 14 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and wihtout jurisdiction and the notice is nonest in the eye of law, and consequently direct t respcndents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners land in an extent of Ac.0.41 cents in Sy.No.190/2A of Chinravutapalli village Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 stay all further proceedings in pursuance of Notices in Form.II in Roc.No.A1.832/2019 dated 1-09-2019 issued to the petitioner with regard to land in an extent of Ac.0.41 cents in Sy.No.190/2A of Chinnavutapalli village Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2019 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 vacate the interim orders dated 27-09-2019 passed in I.A.No. 1/2019 in W.P. No. 14965/2019 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following: 6 VS,J W.P.No.14959 of 2019 & batch COMMON ORDER: All these writ petitions were filed by different petitioners, but, the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same. Hence, I feel it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions by taking W.P.No.14959 of 2019 as leading case. 2. W.P.No.14959 of 2019 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer: “…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Notice in Form-II in ROC.A1.832/2019 dated 1- 09-2019 issued to the petitioner under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, (Act 9/1977) with regard to the land in an extent of Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.190/2B of Chinnavutapalli village Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District, as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of Article 14 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and wihtout jurisdiction and the notice is nonest in the eye of law, and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners land in an extent of Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.190/2B of Chinnavutapalli village Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District and to pass…” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the land admeasuring Acs.0.43½ cents in Sy.No.190/2B situated in Chinnavutpally village, Gannavaram mandal, Krishna district was purchased by the petitioner from one Chattumala Daniyelu by way of a registered sale deed bearing document No.4866/2006, dated 18.08.2006 and ever since, the petitioner 7 VS,J W.P.No.14959 of 2019 & batch has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The 3rd respondent has also issued pattadar pass book bearing patta No.632, dated 12.12.2007 in favour of the petitioner. 4. While the matter stood thus, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned Form-II notice dated 01.09.2019 under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 directing the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be summarily evicted from the subject land alleging that the subject land is an assigned land and that the same has been transferred in favour of the petitioner in contravention of the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in issuing the impugned Form-II notice dated 01.09.2019 in contra with the rules in force, the present writ petition is filed. 5. When the writ petition came up for admission on 27.09.2019, this Court passed the following interim order: “…In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be interim stay of the impugned notice dated 01.09.2019, issued to the petitioner in respect of the subject land, for a period of eight weeks.” The said interim order was extended thereafter from time to time. 8 VS,J W.P.No.14959 of 2019 & batch 6. The 3rd respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit enclosed with a vacate stay petitioner wherein it is contended that impugned notice is issued as per Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 and that the same needs no interference. It is further contended that as per Fair Adangal bearing RS.No.190/2B, the subject land is classified as „Anadheena Punja‟ and the same was subsequently divided and assigned to landless poor persons. In the said process, the subject land was assigned to one Bapatla Mekhayelu and his legal heirs sold the subject property to the petitioner herein in contravention of the provision of Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Heard Sri. Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the facts of the writ petition and further contended that in general, a Form-II notice shall assert that there was assignment of land either under the provisions of the Act or under the Rules for the time being in force subject to condition of non-alienation; such assigned land was transferred by such assignee in contravention of prohibition of alienation clause contained in the deed of assignment; and notice should assert that 9 VS,J W.P.No.14959 of 2019 & batch party, to the show cause notice, had entered upon possession of assigned land under a deed of transfer which is invalid under the provision of Section 3 of the Act. Learned counsel further contended that only if such details are disclosed in the notice, opportunity would be there to the person to whom notice was addressed. Such procedure was not followed by the respondent authorities in issuing the impugned Form-II notice. Hence, requested to set-aside the impugned notice dated 01.09.2019. 9. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader supported the impugned notice in all aspects and contended that as per the Act, the assignees who have sold away the land would have to be served with notices under Form-I whereas the purchasers would have to be served with Form-II notice. Thus, there is no need for both the Forms to be served on the assignee as well as the purchasers. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 10. Perused the entire material available on record. Admittedly, the case of the petitioner is that Form-II notice was issued to him and that Form-I notice had not been served. The question of whether such non- service of Forms would vitiate the resumption process was answered in the affirmative by a learned Single Judge, of the erstwhile High Court of A.P., in Dasari Narayana Rao v. Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, M/s. Sudalagunta Sugars Limited vs. The Joint 10 VS,J W.P.No.14959 of 2019 & batch Collector, Chittoor & Anr., and by another Single Judge, in the case of Renew Wind Energy (TN2) Private Limited vs. State of Telangana. A learned single judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in Dasari Narayana Rao v. Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, had laid down certain mandatory guidelines, which are as follows: 16. In Vatticherukuri Village Panchayat v. Nori V. Deekshithulu, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 228, the Supreme Court explained the principle: “23. The jurisdiction of a tribunal created under statute may depend upon the fulfilment of some condition precedent or upon existence of some particular fact. Such a fact is collateral to the actual matter which the tribunal has to try and the determination whether it existed or not is logically temporary prior to the determination of the actual question which the tribunal has to consider. At the inception of an enquiry by a tribunal of limited jurisdiction, when a challenge is made to its jurisdiction, the tribunal has to consider as the collateral fact whether it would act or not and for that purpose to arrive at some decision as to whether it has jurisdiction or not. There may be tribunal which by virtue of the law constituting it has the power to determine finally, even the preliminary facts on which the further exercise of its jurisdiction depends; but subject to that, the tribunal cannot by a wrong decision with regard to collateral fact, give itself a jurisdiction which it would not otherwise have had”. 17. Much earlier, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440, while dealing with the scope of a writ 11 VS,J W.P.No.14959 of 2019 & batch of certiorari approved the principle evolved in Bunbury v. Fuller, (1853) 9 EX. 111; and R v. Income Tax Special Purposes Commissioners, (1888) 22 QBD 313, and held that when the jurisdiction of the Court depends upon the existence of some collateral fact, the Court cannot by a wrong decision of the fact give itself jurisdiction which it would not otherwise possess. 18. In the light of the above principles as to the jurisdictional limits of a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction, it is clear that a correct conclusion as to the land in the possession of the petitioners being “assigned land” (as this expression is defined in Section 2(1) of the 1977 Act); and the such conclusion arrived at on the basis of the evidence on record; such evidence having been recorded after due opportunity to the aggrieved petitioners, is a condition precedent to the exercise of power under Section 4(1) of the Act. 23. In the considered view of this Court the show- cause notice dated 16.2.2002 is itself invalid. The minimum requirement of a show-cause notice, in the context of an action initiated under the provisions of the 1977 Act is (a) it should assert that there was an assignment of land either under the provisions of the 1977 Act or under any Rules for the time being in force subject to a condition of non-alienation; that such “assigned land” was transferred by such assignee in contravention of the prohibition of alienation clause contained in the deed of assignment; (b) it should assert that the respondents to the show-cause notice had entered upon possession of “assigned land” under a deed of transfer which is invalid under the provisions of Section 3 of the 1977 Act. The show-cause notice must of necessity contain such factual assertions to 12 VS,J W.P.No.14959 of 2019 & batch enable the recipient (of the notice) to rationally respond and submit his objections, if any, to the proceedings initiated against him under the provisions of the 1977 Act. Issuance of a show- cause notice is not an empty ritual. It should provide a reasonable and fair opportunity to the recipient of the show-cause notice to defend his title and possession of, the valuable right to property. 11. The said Judgment was followed in M/s. Sudalagunta Sugars Limited vs. The Joint Collector, Chittoor & Anr.,; B. Adinarayana Murthy vs. Collector Ananthapur District and Anr,; and Renew Wind Energy (TN2) Private Limited vs. State of Telangana. The ratio in these judgments can be summarized as follows: a) The proceedings under the Act, are civil proceedings undertaken by a Tribunal. Any Tribunal, before exercise of jurisdiction, would have to assert the jurisdictional facts. This would require the authority, exercising jurisdiction under Section 4 of the Act, to state that the land, which is the subject matter of the proceedings under the Act, is land which had been assigned to the assignee with a clear condition of non-alienation, to bring the said land within the definition of “Assigned Land” set out in Section 2(1) of the Act. b) Any proceeding, without such jurisdictional facts being settled and set out in the proceedings, would render such proceedings invalid. c) Where the assigned land is sought to be resumed, on the ground of violation of the condition of non-alienation, both the transferor and the transferee would have to be given notice under 13 VS,J W.P.No.14959 of 2019 & batch Form-I and Form-II. Any order passed without serving both the forms to both transferor and transferee would vitiate the entire process. d) The notices served on the transferor and transferee should contain relevant details such as the details of the assignment proceedings; the presence of the condition of non-alienation in the assignment document; the details of alienation done by the assignee in favour of a third party, etc. Non furnishing of such information would invalidate any order of resumption. 12. The procedure for taking steps under Section 4 is set out in Rule 3 of the Rules. Rule 3 of the Rules is set out below: Rule 3.-- Procedure for eviction of the transferee and taking possession and restoration of assigned lands:- The District Collector or the Authorised Officer shall, before taking action under clauses (a) and (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, issue notices in Form No.1 and Form II to the persons who have transferred and also to the persons who have acquired any assigned land in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. The notices shall be served by delivering a copy on transferor and transferee or some adult male member of the family of such transferor or transferee at their usual place of abode or to their authorised agent or by affixing a copy thereof at some conspicuous place of their last known place of residence or on some conspicuous part of the assigned land. After the expiry of (fifteen) 15 days specified in the notice, the District Collector or the Authorised Officer shall consider the representation, if any, received with reference to the said notice and pass such orders as he thinks fit and proper. If it is 14 VS,J W.P.No.14959 of 2019 & batch held that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the Act, have been contravened in respect of any assigned land, a copy of the order shall be communicated to the Village Officer concerned under whose territorial jurisdiction the land is situated for taking possession of the land and thereupon the land shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. 13. Form-I mentioned in Rule 3 of the Rules is a notice, which on the face of the notice, is to be sent to the transferor / assignee, stating that he had alienated “assigned land” assigned to him, in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Act, and that the land is liable to be resumed under Section 4 of the Act for violation of Section 3 of the Act. Similarly, Form-II, on the face of it, appears to be a Form which has to be served on the transferee, calling upon the transferee to show cause, as to why he should not be summarily evicted from the said assigned land etc., as he is found to be in possession of the assigned lands, in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Act. The language is unambiguous and clear. Both forms have to be served on both the assignee and the transferee. “Assigned land”, is defined under the Act to mean, land which is assigned to landless poor persons, subject to the condition of non- alienation. Section 3 mandates that the assigned land cannot be transferred to any person and can only be inherited by the legal heirs of the assignee. Any transfer, made in contravention of Section 3, would be 15 VS,J W.P.No.14959 of 2019 & batch deemed to be null and void. Apart from that, the authority described in Section 4, after giving him a written notice and after giving him an opportunity of hearing, is entitled to take back possession of the assigned land, after evicting the person in possession. 14. The aforesaid procedure would mean that both the assignee and the transferee have to be given notice and both of them would have to be heard and both of them have to be given opportunity of hearing before a decision is taken in the matter. This would mean that the authority would have to take a decision only after hearing both the assignee and the transferee. The decision of the authority, under Section 4, would have to be the same in relation to the assignee as well as the transferee. This would mean that a common hearing or common proceedings would have to be initiated against both assignee and the transferee. In such a situation both the assignee and the transferee would have to be apprised of the case against both of them. Though, the assignee would have to primarily respond to the notice given in Form-I, he would also have to be served with Form-II so that the assignee knows what the case is against the transferee. Similarly, though the transferee essentially would answer the case against him sent under Form-II he is entitled to know what the case against the assignee is. In some cases, the assignee may be apathetic, after alienating the land and the burden of 16 VS,J W.P.No.14959 of 2019 & batch defending his possession of the land may be on the transferee. In such circumstances, the service of notice in Form I, on the transferee, is necessary. 15. This Court, in State of Andhra Pradesh and ors., v. Kota Venkata Ramana and another1, under similar circumstances held that failure to serve such notices would leave the assignee and the transferee with inadequate information, which would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. Thus, following the said principle of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the impugned notices are liable to be set-aside and the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 16. In view of the detailed discussion made in W.P.No.14959 of 2019, W.P.Nos.14661 and 14965 of 2019 deserves to be allowed. 17. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned Form-II notices dated 01.09.2019 issued to the petitioners are hereby set- aside. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these Petitions shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 11.08.2026 Gss 1 2024(5)ALT 367 (DB)(AP)