Kola Suguna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing Form-I notices dt.02-06-2018 in respect of petitioner schedule land in Sy.No.426-2, admeasuring 0-18 cents, Sy.No.426-7 admeasuring 0-87 cents and land in Sy.No.426-3 admeasuring 0-60 cents and 426-5 admeasuring 0-58 cents situated in Vallur Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District without following the procedure contemplated under

¶19

2

¶20

JS,J W.P.No.29713 of 2018

¶21

Rule 3 of A.P. Assign Land (Prohibition) Act, 2007 as highly illegal, arbitrary against all canons of fair play and natural justice and offends Articles 14, 21, 300A of the constitution of India and also contrary to procedure contemplated under A.P. Assign Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 and consequently set aside the same and pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶23

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 stay all further proceedings in pursuance of Form-I notices dt.02-06-2018 including interference with possession of petitioner schedule land in Sy.No.426-2, admeasuring 0-18 cents, Sy.No.426-7 admeasuring 0-87 cents and land in Sy.No.426-3 admeasuring 0-60 cents and 426-5 admeasuring 0-58 cents situated in Vallur Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.SITA RAM CHAPARLA

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP)

¶28

This Court made the following:

¶29

3

¶30

JS,J W.P.No.29713 of 2018

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

Whether the impugned Form-I notice, issued by the 4^th respondent to the vendor, the original assignee, without serving the corresponding Form-II notice on the current possessor (subsequent purchaser), constitutes a gross violation of the mandatory procedure under Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007, thereby violates the principles of natural justice ( audi alteram partem ) and rendering the proceeding liable to be set aside?

¶33

Heard Sri Sitaram Chaparla, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶34

The petitioner is the owner and possessor of land measuring Ac.0.18 cents in Sy No. 426-2 and Ac.0.87 cents in Sy No. 426-7 of Vallur Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District. On 6 May 1975, the petitioner entered into an agreement of sale with the vendor, Smt. Paladugu Akkamma. Subsequently, the vendor sold Ac.0.18 cents to M. Padmavathamma, who, following mediation by the village elders, transferred the land back to the petitioner vide a registered sale deed (Document No. 1071/1977) on 26 March 1997. Additionally, Smt. Paladugu

¶35

4

¶36

JS,J W.P.No.29713 of 2018

¶37

Akkamma registered the sale deed (Document No. 5320/1995) on 6 November 1995 in favour of the petitioner.

¶38

The petitioner has been in continuous possession of the property for over 20 years as at the date of the impugned notice dated 2-6-2018. The Form-I notice was issued to the petitioner‘s vendor under Rule 3 of the Rules, 2007. The petitioner‘s counsel submits that, prior to taking action under Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act, 1977, the District Collector or the authorised officer is required to issue notices in both Form I and Form II to the transferor and transferee. In the present case, only Form-I notice was issued; no Form-II notice was issued. Therefore, the respondents have violated the prescribed legal procedure, and the Form-I notice must be quashed. Additionally, the failure to issue a Form-II notice to the actual possessor (the petitioner) constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice. The counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following citations:

¶39

a) Sudalagunta Sugars Ltd., Chittoor District, A.P. Vs. Joint Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District , reported in 2017 (2) ALD 529 – wherein a learned Single Judge of the common High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows:

¶40

“21 . The Government through G.O.Ms. No. 208 Revenue (Assn.-POT) dated 22.02.2007 framed the A.P. Assigned

¶41

5

¶42

JS,J W.P.No.29713 of 2018

¶43

Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007. Rule 3 has laid down the procedure for eviction of the transferee and taking possession and restoration of assigned lands. Rule 3 reads thus:

¶44

Procedure for eviction of the Transferee and taking possession and restoration of Assigned Lands : - The District Collector or the Authorized Officer shall, before taking action under clauses (a) and (b) 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 authorized 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 Authorized Officer shall consider the representation, if any, received with reference to the said notice and pass such order as he thinks fit and proper. If it is 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 that land is situated for taking possession of the land and thereupon the land shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 of the Act. (emphasis added)

¶45

22 . The answer to the point under consideration firstly depends on interpretation of Rule.3. Plain and literal construction of Rule 3 leads to the following results:

¶46

i) The District Collector or authorized officer shall issue notices in Form-I and Form-II before taking action under clauses (a) and (b) of sub section (1) of Section 4 of the Act to persons who have transferred and also to the persons who have acquired any assigned land in contravention of sub section (2) of Section 3 of the Act.

¶47

6

¶48

JS,J W.P.No.29713 of 2018

¶49

ii) The notices are directed to be served by delivering a copy on transferor and transferee or on some adult person etc. as stated therein.

¶50

iii) The District Collector or authorized officer is under obligation to consider the representation, if any, with reference to the said notice and pass such order as he thinks fit and proper.

¶51

iv) The copy of order is also directed to be communicated to the Village Officer. (emphasis added)

¶52

xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx

¶53

24. Unless and until this jurisdictional fact is decided with reference to assignment, order of assignment, conditions on which assignment made, the mere issuance of notice in FormII to transferee will not serve the purpose of hearing or considering the objections. The forms under the Rules cannot guide literal meaning of Rule 3 of the Rules. On the other hand, if a restricted meaning as sought to be canvassed by the learned Government Pleader is accepted, then transferee is heard only on the eviction but not on the valuable defences available to him in the enquiry conducted by the District Collector or authorized officer. After considering the totality of scheme of Act, Rules and the content of notices in Form-I and Form-II, this Court is of the view that whenever action under Section 4 of the Act is initiated by the District Collector or authorized officer, the authority is required to issue notices in Form-I and Form-II to the assignee and the transferee from the assignee.‖

¶54

b) When a similar issue came up for consideration, a Division Bench of

¶55

this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kota Venkata Ramana , reported in 2024 Supreme (AP) 609 and 2024 APHC 28216, held as follows:

¶56

7

¶57

JS,J W.P.No.29713 of 2018

¶58

―17. The admitted case on both sides is that Form-I notices have been issued to the original assignees and no Form-II notice had been issued to them. Similarly, Form-II notices were issued to the purchasers and persons claiming through them and no Form-I notice had been issued to them.

¶59

A learned single judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Dasari Narayana Rao v. Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, had laid down certain mandatory guidelines, which are as follows:

¶60

In Vatticherukuri Village Panchayat v. Nori V. Deekshithulu, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 228, the Supreme Court explained the principle:

¶61

―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‖.

¶62

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 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.

¶63

8

¶64

JS,J W.P.No.29713 of 2018

¶65

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.

¶66

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 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.

¶67

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 subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Act. The notices shall be served by delivering a copy on transferor and transferee or some adult

¶68

9

¶69

JS,J W.P.No.29713 of 2018

¶70

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 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.

¶71

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 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.‖

¶72

The relevant aspect was duly considered by a learned Single Judge

¶73

of this Court in paragraph 24 of the order in W.P. No. 18226 of 2019 (Baimuthaka Yashoda v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2020

¶74

10

¶75

JS,J W.P.No.29713 of 2018

¶76

Supreme (AP) 733), in which the writ petition was allowed, directing the respondent authorities to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner.

¶77

c) Gummadi Subba Rao vs. the Tahsildar, Iragavaram Mandal,

¶78

West Godavari, and others, as reported in 2020 Supreme (AP) 863, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court held thus:

¶79

―26. Though there is a dispute regarding identity of the property, this Court need not decide the issue as to the identity of the property, since it is a question of fact, apart from that as per discussion in earlier paragraphs, notice itself is defective and contrary to the principles of natural justice and Rule 3 of Rules, 2007; notice impugned in the petition is declared as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Rule 3 of Rules, 2007 and the same is liable to be set aside.‖

¶80

It is evident from the record that the Form-I notice was issued to the petitioner‘s vendor, Paladugu Anakamma, referencing the transferee as Kola Suguna W/o L. Prabhakar Rao. The transfer involved is a registered sale.

¶81

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, based on written instructions, submits that Form-I notice was issued to the original assignee as per the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. It is stated that the petitioner purchased the scheduled land from the original assignee in violation of the conditions of the DKT patta which prohibits alienation. Furthermore, Form-II notice was issued to the

¶82

11

¶83

JS,J W.P.No.29713 of 2018

¶84

subsequent purchaser also i.e., the petitioner. The instructions further reveal that there has been no active cultivation on ground in the subject land. Consequently, the respondents pray to dismiss the writ petition, as the land was alienated in contravention to the grant of assignment rendering the sale void.

¶85

The term assigned land is defined in Section 2(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.

¶86

Assigned land : means lands assigned by the Government to landless poor person(s) under the rules for the time being in force, subject to the condition of non-alienation, and includes lands allotted or transferred to landless poor persons under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to land ceilings; and the word ‗assigned‘ shall be construed accordingly.

¶87

Section 3 of the Act, 1977, pertains to the prohibition of transfer of assigned lands, as outlined below:

¶88

― 3. Prohibition of transfer of assigned lands .—(1) Where, before or after the commencement of this Act any land has been assigned by the Government to a landless poor person for purposes of cultivation or as a house-site then, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force or in the deed of transfer or other document relating to such land, it shall not be transferred and shall be deemed never to have been transferred; and

¶89

12

¶90

JS,J W.P.No.29713 of 2018

¶91

accordingly no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer.

¶92

(2) No landless poor person shall transfer any assigned land, and no person shall acquire any assigned land, either by purchase, gift,⁶ [Lease (except in the case of Lease to the Andhra Pradesh Green Energy Corporation Ltd., for use as deemed fit and including for usage of non-agriculture purpose)], mortgage, exchange or otherwise.

¶93

7 [ (2A) No assignee shall transfer any assigned house site, and no person shall acquire any assigned house site, either by purchase, gift,⁸ [Lease (except in the case of Lease to the Andhra Pradesh Green Energy Corporation Ltd., for use as deemed fit and including for usage of non-agriculture purpose)], mortgage, exchange or otherwise, till completion of the period of 20 years from the date of assignment.

¶94

(2B) Where the assigned House site was alienated by the assignee as on the date of commencement of this Act, such house site shall be regularized in favour of the alienee as a one-time measure.

¶95

(2C) The eligible family shall be assigned house site only once in life time.]

¶96

(3) Any transfer or acquisition made in contravention of the provision of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)⁹ [ or sub-section (2A)] shall be deemed to be null and void.

¶97

(4) The Provisions of this section shall apply to any transaction of the nature referred to in sub-section (2) in execution of a decree or order of a civil court or of any award or order of any other authority.

¶98

(5) Nothing in this section shall apply to an assigned land which was purchased by a landless poor person in good faith and for valuable consideration from the original assignee or his transferee prior to the commencement of this Act and which is in the possession of such person for purposes of cultivation or as a house-site on the date of such commencement.‖

¶99

13

¶100

JS,J W.P.No.29713 of 2018

¶101

The notice in Rc.DT.67/2018, dated 02.06.2018, issued by the 4^th respondent is hereby examined. It is found that said notice was issued in flagrant violation of Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007. These Rules mandate strict adherence to the prescribed procedural requirement of issuing prior notice before the resumption of assigned lands under Sections 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.

¶102

While Section 3 of the Act, 1977 prohibits the transfer of assigned land to any third party and deems any transfer, acquisition or sale made in violation thereof null and void, implying that no right or title vests in the subsequent purchaser, the mandatory procedural requirements under Rule 3 of the Rules, 2007 must still be adhered to by the authorities before resumption.

¶103

Although the written instructions state that Form-I and Form-II notices were issued to both the original assignee and the subsequent purchaser, no material has been filed to demonstrate that Form-II notice was actually served on the petitioner. In the absence of such material, this Court cannot hold that Form-II notice was served to the petitioner. The authorities or the authorized officer is legally required to serve a notice in

¶104

14

¶105

JS,J W.P.No.29713 of 2018

¶106

Form-I to the original assignee/transferor and a notice in Form-II to the subsequent purchaser/person in possession. These notices must contain specific details, including the survey number, the extent of land, the original allotee's name and the date of allotment.

¶107

In the present case, the respondent authorities served notice only to

¶108

the vendor and failed to serve the mandatory Form-II notice to the subsequent purchaser, particularly when the purchaser is in possession and their name appears in the revenue records. The entire resumption process is, therefore, flawed and constitutes a breach of mandatory procedural requirement as established in Sudalagunta Sugars Limited v. the Joint Collector, Chittoor and another (2017 (1) ALT 499) and the case of t he State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kota Venkata Ramana (2024

¶109

Supreme (AP) 609).

¶110

Having considered the settled legal position, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned notice.

¶111

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the Impugned Form-I notice dated 02.06.2018 issued by the 4^th respondent is set aside. No order as to costs.

¶112

15

¶113

JS,J W.P.No.29713 of 2018

¶114

However, this order will not preclude the respondent authorities from initiating fresh proceedings in accordance with law and strictly following the procedural guidelines laid down in the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007.

¶115

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶116

_________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

¶117

10^th April, 2026 cbs

¶118

16

¶119

JS,J W.P.No.29713 of 2018

¶120

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM