THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION NO.16489 OF 2009 DATED 20th APRIL, 2011 BETWEEN Kotha Ravinder and others …Petitioners And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet Revenue Division, Siddipet, Medak District and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION NO.16489 OF 2009 ORDER: Questioning the Form-II notices in proceedings bearing Lr.No.C/5216/2009 dated 01.07.2009 issued under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 by the Tahsildar, Siddipet Mandal, Medak District, the second respondent, calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be summarily evicted from their land each in an extent of Ac.0.15 guntas situated in Survey No.1340/3 of Lingareddipalli, Hamlet of Siddipet, Medak District, as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act of 1977’), the present writ petition is filed by the petitioners, who are nine in number, seeking a consequential direction to the respondent authorities not to proceed further in the matter pursuant to the said notices . It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners and possessors of the land each in an extent of Ac.0.15 guntas in Survey No.1340/3 of Lingareddipalli, Hamlet of Siddipet, Medak District, having purchased the same under the registered sale deed dated 16.10.2003 for a valid consideration. It is stated that the names of their vendors’ fathers found mention in the revenue records pertaining to the subject land and pattadar pass books and title deeds were also issued to their vendors. It is therefore their contention that they were the bona fide purchasers of the subject land and that since then they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject land without any interruption whatsoever. While things stood thus, the Form-II notices by way of the impugned proceedings were independently and separately issued to the petitioners, albeit all the notices are similar and analogous in nature, calling upon them to show cause as to why they should not be summarily evicted from the subject land on the ground that the subject land is assigned land and the petitioners are the transferees thereof which is contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1977. In this connection, it is stated that earlier also the registering authority had raised a similar dispute of assignment in respect of the subject land when the vendors of the petitioners executed the documents in their favour and that at that time the vendors of the petitioners had approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.20737 of 2003. The said writ petition was disposed of on 08.04.2004 directing the respondents therein inter alia to register the document and release the same provided that the same was in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder. Pursuant to the said order, the document presented by the vendors of the petitioners was registered and released. De hors the same, the second respondent has now issued the Form-II notices under the impugned proceedings to the petitioners as aforestated. Assailing the said notices, the present writ petition is filed. In the counter filed by the second respondent, it is stated that the total land in Survey No.1340 of Lingareddipalli, Hamlet of Siddipet, Medak District, comprises of Ac.91.04 guntas and out of this land, an extent of Ac.5.00 guntas was assigned long back in the name of one Smt.Thirunagari Rangamma by the then Tahsildar, Siddipet. It is pointed out that after the demise of the original assignee, the names of her legal heirs were implemented in the revenue records and thereafter the legal heirs sold the subject land to the petitioners under the registered sale deed dated 16.10.2003. Thereupon, the petitioners made an application to the second respondent for implementation of their names in the revenue records in respect of the subject land. It is averred that at this stage on examination of their application it was found that the land in Survey No.1340 was a Government land as per the revenue records. Noticing the same, the Form-II notices under the impugned proceedings were issued to the petitioners on the ground that they have violated the patta conditions as the subject land was an assigned land and their so-called purchase of the subject land is void as per the provisions of the Act of 1977. It is however mentioned that after the demise of the original assignee, the land was transferred to her son and the same was reflected from the Faisal Patti and that Supplementary Sethwar was also issued in his favour in the year 1978 by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Medak District at Sangareddy. Amazingly, it is stated that the connected record pertaining to the so-called assignment is not available in the office of the second respondent. This Court, by order dated 12.08.2010 while admitting the writ petition, directed that enquiry may go on, but no final orders shall be passed until further orders. Pursuant to the said order, it is stated that no further proceedings have been taken up. Heard Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondent authorities. Perused the case file. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Form-II notices issued under the impugned proceedings are entirely untenable and without jurisdiction as the subject land does not come under the ambit and scope of the Act of 1977 in as much as the Act of 1977 will have inter alia application to the lands which are surrendered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and, that too, when the same are assigned to the landless poor persons. The learned counsel pointed out that unless the above twin essential features are substantiated completely, the provisions of the Act of 1977 cannot be pressed into service. He therefore contended that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the Form-II notices under the impugned proceedings. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the Judgments of this Court in NIMMAGADDA RAMA DEVI v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA[1]; RAMBAGH SATYANARAYANA v. JOINT COLLECTOR, R.R.DIST, HYDERABAD[2]; SHYAM SUNDER v. GOVT., OF A.P., REVENUE (ASSIGNMENT) DEPARTMENT[3] and DASARI NARAYANA RAO v. DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, SERILINGAMPALLI, R.R.DISTRICT[4]. The learned counsel also asserted that earlier in the year 2000 a similar notice was issued to one of the vendors of the petitioners, namely T.Venkat Narasaiah, but further proceedings pursuant to the said notice were dropped by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Siddipet, by his proceedings bearing No.D/5196/99 dated 22.02.2000 after holding a detailed enquiry into matter. He placed a copy of the said proceedings before this Court to substantiate the said contention. Lastly, he argued that as there is no mention in the Form-II notices issued under the impugned proceedings as to the name of the original assignee, the details of the assignment deed, the clause of prohibition of alienation of the subject land, etc., the said notices do not stand to legal scrutiny and prayed for setting aside of the Form-II notices issued under the impugned proceedings. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent authorities, while reiterating the counter averments, submitted that the second respondent on examination of the records pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioners for implementation of their names in the revenue records in respect of the subject land it came to light that the subject land is an assigned land and as the petitioners have purchased the same in contravention of the conditions of the assignment, such purchase is void under the provisions of the Act of 1977. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue therefore sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. As can be seen from the material placed on record, at the outset it is obvious that the file pertaining to the so-called assignment is not available in the Office of the second respondent. If that be so, it is not known as to how the second respondent came to a definite conclusion that the subject land is an assigned land at a time when the application made by the petitioners for implementation of their names in the revenue records in respect of the subject land was taken up for consideration. That apart, copy of the proceedings bearing No.D/5196/99 dated 22.02.2000 issued by the second respondent placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners manifestly discloses that a similar notice was earlier issued to the one of the vendors of the petitioners in respect of the very same Survey No.1340/3 and after holding a full-fledged enquiry, further proceedings pursuant thereto were dropped by the second respondent as long back as in the year 2000 itself. In this background, this Court is not able to comprehend as to how the present Form-II notices under the impugned proceedings in the year 2009 came to be issued in respect of the land situated in the selfsame survey number. It is also evident from the record that supplementary sethwar was issued to one of the vendors of the petitioners as early as in the year 1978 by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Medak District at Sangareddy and that pattadar pass books and title deeds were also standing in the name of the vendors of the petitioners. Admittedly, earlier when the vendors of the petitioners intended to sell the subject land to the petitioners and presented the document for registration before the registering authority, it rejected the document for registration. Aggrieved by the same, the vendors of the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.20737 of 2003 and pursuant to the interim order granted therein by this Court on 25.09.2003 the registering authority registered the document by assigning pending registration number. Thereafter, the said writ petition was disposed of on 08.04.2004 directing the registering authority to register and release the document presented before him provided that the same was in accordance with the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules made thereunder. It is stated that in compliance thereof, the registering authority, after considering the material made available before him, registered and released the document presented by the vendors of the petitioners. Thereupon, the revenue authorities had neither preferred a writ appeal against the said order of this Court nor had it approached the competent civil court assailing the said registered document. Consequently, the order dated 08.04.2004 passed by this Court in W.P.No.20737 of 2003 attained finality. Even otherwise, the second respondent is unable to substantiate his averment that the subject land is an assignment land. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioners that they trace their title to the subject land under the registered sale deed dated 16.10.2003 having purchased the same from their vendors for a valid consideration and that since then they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject land without any hindrance. To invoke the provisions of the Act of 1977, it is inter alia expedient to show that the lands are surrendered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and that the same are assigned to the landless poor persons. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the case on hand, the respondent authorities have failed to establish the abovementioned twin conditions to invoke the provisions of the Act of 1977 in respect of the subject land. Therefore, the action of the second respondent in issuing the Form-II notices under the impugned proceedings is without jurisdiction and the same is untenable and unsustainable under law. Reference in this regard may be made to a Judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in DASARI NARAYANA RAO v. DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, SERILINGAMPALLI, R.R.DISTRICT (4 supra): “30. In Nimmagadda Rama Devi v. District Collector, Machilipatnam and another, 1996 (4) ALD 572 (DB), a Division Bench of this Court held, on an analysis of the provisions of the 1977 Act, that only if there is a condition of non-alienation while assigning the lands or the land is assigned under the provisions of the AP Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, it would be “assigned land” within the meaning of the 1977 Act; where the assignment is without any such condition as to non-alienation, it would not be “assigned land” under the 1977 Act and the said Act has no applicability. When such is the position, the authorities under the Act have no jurisdiction to deal with the lands under the provisions of the 1977 Act, held the Division Bench.” In the wake of the order dated 08.04.2004 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.20737 of 2003 which attained finality and the consequential action taken thereof by the registering authority in registering and releasing the document presented by the vendors of the petitioners, the present issuance of Form-II notices under the impugned proceedings cannot legitimately be sustained. Such action of the second respondent is therefore without jurisdiction. For the sake of argument, even if the subject land is considered to be assigned land, it is not known as to what are the conditions reflected therein and as to whether the so-called assignment is covered by the condition of ‘non-alienation’ of the subject land in view of the fact that the file pertaining to the so-called assignment is stated to be not available in the office of the second respondent. Notwithstanding the same, the plea of the second respondent is that the subject land is an assigned land which cannot be sustained in the backdrop of the case on hand. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances narrated hereinbefore, the provisions of the Act of 1977 have obviously no application to the subject land. Once the subject land cannot be said to be an assigned land, the Form-II notices issued under the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside for more than one reason as they are clearly illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1977. Therefore, the Form-II notices issued under the impugned proceedings bearing Lr.No.C/5216/2009 dated 01.07.2009 are hereby set aside and consequently the respondent authorities are directed to drop further proceedings in the matter. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA 20th APRIL, 2011. msnr [1] 1996 (4) ALD 572 (DB) [2] 2000 (2) ALD 433 [3] 2001 (6) ALT 128 [4] 2010 (6) ALD 536