THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.21073, 21273, 21470, 21619 and 21635 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: In all these five Writ Petitions, the proceedings under challenge are the orders issued by the Tahsildar, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (fourth respondent), whereby, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the lands in question were directed to be resumed back to the government’s possession holding that they were assigned lands; such purchase of assigned lands was hit by the provisions of the Act; and the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Quthbullapur (fifth respondent) was directed to take possession of the lands immediately and report compliance. While several contentions are urged by Sri D.Prakash Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, including that the lands in question are not assigned lands; the petitioners’ being purchasers were not put on notice prior to the orders being passed; and, in any event, it is not even the case of the respondents that the assignment is without any right of alienation etc., it is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine all of them as the Writ Petitions are required to be allowed, and the impugned orders set aside, on the sole ground that the petitioners’, who had purchased the said lands by way of registered sale deeds, much prior to the impugned orders being passed, were not put on notice before the impugned orders came to be passed. When the matter came up for hearing on the previous occasion, Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) fairly stated that the petitioners herein were not put on notice as the respondents were unaware of their having purchased the said lands. Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 (for short ‘2007 Rules’), read with Form- II thereunder, requires persons, who had purchased assigned lands, to be put on 15 days notice asking them to show cause why they should not be evicted from the lands in question; and, as such, failure on the part of the respondents to put the petitioners’ on notice is not only in violation of principles of natural justice, but does not also accord with the requirements of Rule 3 of the 2007 Rules. Learned Government Pleader further stated that, with a view to obviate any further delay in the matter, notices in Form-II would be issued, and handed over to the Learned Counsel for the petitioners in Court. Today, when the matter is called, Learned Government Pleader asserts, and the Learned Counsel for the petitioners admits, that copies of the notices in Form-II, issued to the petitioners, have been handed over. As notices have been handed over to him, Learned Counsel for the petitioners waives the requirement of service of notices on the petitioners. Sri D.Prakash Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel, would voice the petitioners’ apprehension that the respondents may demolish the buildings immediately after such orders are passed, and thereby render the petitioners’ right of appeal, under the Act, illusory. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the time limit, prescribed under the Act, for preferring an appeal is 90 days and, atleast seven (7) days, should be granted to the petitioners, if adverse orders are passed against them, to avail their appellate remedy or such other remedies as are available to them in law. The impugned orders are quashed for violation of principles of natural justice, and non-compliance of Rule 3 read with Form-II of the 2007 Rules. The petitioners are permitted to file their objections to the show cause notices within two weeks from today. In case such objections are filed within the aforementioned period, the fourth respondent shall consider the objections, in accordance with law; pass reasoned orders thereupon; and communicate the orders to the petitioners. In case no objections are filed within the aforementioned period of 15 days, it is open to the fourth respondent to pass orders afresh, in accordance with law, and communicate the said orders to the petitioners. The fourth respondent shall not give effect to the orders to be passed by him, for a period of one week from the date of communication of the orders to the petitioners herein, to enable them to avail such remedies as are available to them in law. The Writ Petitions are, accordingly, allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:19.08.2011 usd