A Rajeswari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

“to issue any writ or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.4 in issuing the impugned Form-ll notice dt.10.01.2025 with respect to the land of the petitioner admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2.90 cents in Sy.No.334/1 of Pandipadu Village, A.S.Peta Mandal, SPSR Nellore District without following the procedure contemplated under Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unjust, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner from the land admeasuring extent of Ac.2.90 cents in Sy.No.334/1 of Pandipadu Village, A.S.Peta Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and to pass such other order or orders….”

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is the resident of Pandipadu Village, A.S.Peta Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and the petitioner has been in possession and cultivating the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2.90 cents in Sy.No.334/1 of Pandipadu Village, A.S.Peta Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. Later, the name of the

¶26

petitioner was also mutated in respect of the subject land in the revenue records. As such, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land without there being any interference or hindernace from any quarter and eking out his livelihood by doing agricultural operations.

¶27

While things stood thus, respondent No.4 herein issued a notice in Form-II under Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 (in short ‘Rules, 2007’) indicating that the petitioner should be evicted from the subject land in view of violation of conditions of the DKT patta granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the subject notice is not in accordance with the Rule 3 of the Rules, 2007. Moreso, the said notice does not contain the details and also reasons for which the subject notice was issued except expressing their intention of evicting the petitioner from the subject land. He further submits that no reasons were assigned what is the violation said to have been committed by the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition.

¶29

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Divison Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos. 437 of 2024 and batch dated 05.08.2024. Para Nos.21, 27, 32, 34 and 35 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:

¶30

“21. This Judgment was followed in M/s. Sudalagunta Sugars

¶31

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:

¶32

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.

¶33

b) Any proceeding, without such jurisdictional facts being settled and set out in the proceedings, would render such proceedings invalid.

¶34

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 Form-I and Form-II. Any order passed without serving both the Forms to both transferor and transferee would vitiate the entire process.

¶35

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 nonalienation 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.

¶36

27. The schedules attached to both these Forms have certain differences. Column 4 in the schedule attached to Form-I sets

¶37

out details and date of patta certificate, column 5 sets out the name of the transferee and column 6 sets out the nature of transfer and date. In Form-II, column 4 sets out the description of the land of the assignee, column 5 sets out the name of the transferor and date of transfer and column 6 set out the nature of transfer.

¶38

32. The language is unambiguous and clear. Both Forms have to be served on both the assignee and the transferee. Any other interpretation would twist the language to something which does not appear to be intended. It also appears that the language, used in Rule 3, was not accidental or inartistic, but put in place for cogent reasons. For this purpose, a look at the scheme of the Act and the Rules is necessary.

¶39

34. 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. There cannot be a situation where the explanation of the assignee is accepted that there was no transfer while the explanation of the transferee that there was no transfer is rejected.

¶40

35. 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

¶41

know what the case against the assignee is. In some cases, the assignee may be apathetic, after alienating the land and the burden of 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. The converse situation may also arise requiring the assignee to defend the case of the transferee also. 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.”

¶42

On perusal of the said order, this Court specifically observed that if the respondents intend to evict the petitioner after resumption of the assigned land, the authorities concerned should follow the due procedure as contemplated under Rule 3 of Rules, 2007.

¶43

In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court referred supra, the impugned notice issued by respondent No.4 in Form-II is not in accordance with law and liable to be set aside.

¶44

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits that the notice issued by the respondent No.4 appears to be not in accordance with the Rule 3 of Rules, 2007, let be a direction to remand the matter back to respondent No.4 for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

¶45

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, it appears that the impugned notice dated 10.01.2025 issued by respondent No.4 is contrary to

¶46

the object and Rule 3 of Rules, 2007 and also contrary to the ratio laid down

¶47

by the judgment passed bythe Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court referred supra.

¶48