THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.1050 of 2012 ORDER: This Writ petition is filed with the following relief: “….to issue an order or direction of writ particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declaring the order in Proc.No.E1/452/2011 dated 01.09.2011, as illegal and in contravention of law; (ii) declare that the orders for resumption of land of the petitioners situated in Survey Nos.208/2/3 and 208/1, and 208 to an extent of Ac.3.24 ½ guntas and Ac.2.24 ½ guntas respectively of Jangampally village, Bikhnoor Mandal, Nizamabad District is contrary to the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act 9 of 1977) and the Rules framed thereunder in Rule-3 and consequently set aside the same………” 2. Heard Sri Pulla Rao Yellanki, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignments. SK,J W.P.No.1050 of 2012 2 3. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1st petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3.24 ½ guntas in Survey No.208 having purchased the same from one Narsi Reddy Hanmaiahgari through his General Power of Attorney (G.P.A) holder M.Ramulu vide registered sale deed No.523 of 2003 dated.30.08.2003 and the 2nd petitioner also purchased the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.3.24 ½ guntas in the same survey number from said Narsi Reddy vide registered sale deed Nos.524 of 2003 and 525 of 2003 dated 30.08.2003 and the possession of the respective lands were delivered to them on the same day and they were issued Pattadar Pass Books and title deed Nos.1617 and 1619 respectively by the 3rd respondent and they were also issued No Objection Certificates by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kama Reddy, vide Proc.Nos.A4/421/2011 dated 24.03.2011 for alienating the lands. While that being so, the SK,J W.P.No.1050 of 2012 3 petitioners came to know through the Village Revenue Officer that the lands of the petitioners were resumed by the revenue authorities through impugned proceedings dated 01.09.2011, however, the petitioners are still in possession and enjoyment of the lands and that they have no knowledge of issuing any such proceedings nor they were issued any notices. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that, originally one Arepally Pedda Sidda Goud and Arepally Yella Goud were pattadars of the said land and they alienated some extent of lands to the Vendor of the petitioners. An extent of Ac.1.00 Guntas was acquired for National High Way No.44 from the 2nd petitioner and an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- was also paid to him as compensation. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the impugned proceedings were issued without any notice to the petitioners and the said SK,J W.P.No.1050 of 2012 4 action of the respondents was contrary to the Rule 3 of A.P.Assigned lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Rules, 2007. As per Section 4 of the Act the District Collector or the Authorized Officer, before taking action is required to issue notice in Form No.I and Form No.II to the transferors and transferees and has to consider the representations, if any. The procedure for service is also prescribed under the Rules. As the pass books and title deeds were issued to the petitioners in 2004 itself it conclusively shows that the respondents have knowledge of the ownership of the petitioners, however, the procedure contemplated under Rules, 2007 has not been adhered by the Collector/District Magistrate, Nizamabad/Respondent No.2 before issuing impugned proceedings. In the instant case no notice under Form No.I and II under Rule 3 of A.P.Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Rules were issued to the petitioners or any other owners shown in the impugned orders, the very initiation of proceedings SK,J W.P.No.1050 of 2012 5 is illegal and void and requested the Court to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the following judgments: Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Ranga Reddy District and another Vs. B.Narayana Swamy (died) per LRs Smt.B.laxmamma and others1 G.Shankar Reddy Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar and others2 Letters Sent from Plot No.338, Parvant Nagar, Borabaonda, Hyderabad and others Vs. Collector and District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderbad and others3 Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others Vs. P.Harinath Reddy and others4 Madamaneni Chinnaswamy (died) per LRs Vs. Joint Collector, Chittoor and others5 Madamaneni Chinnaswamy (died) per LRs Vs. Joint Collector, Chittoor and others6 1. 2022 (2) ALT 262 (DB)(TS) 2. 2022 (6) ALT 235 (TS) 3. 2008 (5) ALT 313 (DB) 4. 2009 (4) ALT 1 (DB) 5. 2009 (1) ALT 424 6. 2009 (4) ALT 1 (DB) SK,J W.P.No.1050 of 2012 6 G.Amrutha Rao and others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and others7 Sunkara Sujana Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others8 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for respondents, basing on the counter, submits that as per the Khasara Pahani for the year 1954-55 the land in Survey No.208 to an extent of Ac.12.17 situated at Jangamapally village of Bhiknoor Mandal is a ‘Khariz Khatha” (KK) land. As per pahanies for the year years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61 also the said land is recorded as “Khariz Khatha”. That as per the entries made in Faisal Patti for the year 1959-60 , out of Ac.12.17 guntas, an extent of Ac.3.17 guntas is not fit for cultivation and the remaining 9 acres was assigned by the then Tahsildar in favour of two persons viz., Pedda Saya Gouda and Yella Goud i.e. 4 acres and 5 acres 7. 2013 (1) ALT 267 8. 2014 (2) ALT 1 SK,J W.P.No.1050 of 2012 7 respectively vide Proc.No.A3/269/1959, subject to assignment conditions as per G.O.Ms.No.1406, Revenue Department dated 25.07.1958 and the same was got implemented in the revenue records in Jamabandi for year 1958-59. In 1970’s erstwhile Taluq of Kamareddy split into two taluqs viz., Kamareddy and Domakonda and after formation of Domakonda Taluq entire records pertaining to present Bhiknoor and Domakonda Mandals were shifted to Domakonda. That in the year 1985 Mandals were created and consequently Bhiknoor and Doamaknda Mandals were formed, and in spite of best efforts the file bearing No.A3/269/1959 is not traceable, however, assignments granted were implemented in Faisal Patties for the year 1958-59, but assignments pattas granted to the individuals are not traced. That the petitioners, by hiding the facts before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kama Reddy and managed to get No-Objection Certificate. Any SK,J W.P.No.1050 of 2012 8 transaction or sale in respect of schedule land is a nullity as per the provisions of A.P.Assigned Land (PoT) Act, 1977 and the petitioners cannot claim any immunity from the said provisions. 8. The learned Government Pleader further submits that in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated.25.07.1958, the assignees are not allowed to sell their assigned lands, as such the Collector, Nizamabad issued the resumption proceedings No.E1/452/2011 dated 01.09.2011, thus, the purchasers have violated the Section 3 (1) A.P. Assigned Lands (PoT) Act, 1977 and hence the Collector Nizamabad, passed the orders for resumption of Government lands, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief from this Court as the petitioners violated the provisions of POT Act, 1977. With regard to payment of compensation the Land Acquisition Officer paid the compensation on the basis of records produced before him and the same does not confer any right or title in SK,J W.P.No.1050 of 2012 9 favour of the petitioners and requested the Court to dismiss the petition. 9. After hearing both sides, this Court is of considered view that the petitioners are the owners of the schedule lands having purchased the same through registered sale deeds and the competent authorities have issued pattadar pass books and title deeds. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer also issued No Objection certificates on 24.03.2011. While it being so, the concerned Village Revenue Officer informed the petitioners that the schedule land were resumed by the revenue authorities through impugned proceedings dated 01.09.2011. 10. In the counter the respondents admitted that in spite of best efforts File No.A3/269/1959 is not traceable pertaining to assignment of the schedule lands and again alleging the petitioners by hiding the facts before the revenue authorities obtained No Objection Certificates and any transactions or sale is a SK,J W.P.No.1050 of 2012 10 nullity as per the provisions of A.P.Assigned Land (PoA) Act, 1977. 11. Admittedly, before passing the impugned orders the respondent No.2 has not issued any notice to the petitioners. The impugned orders were passed basing on the enquiry conducted by the Joint Collector, Nizamabad behind back of the petitioners and also directed to cancel all the registered documents, which were executed in favour of the petitioners. In the impugned orders or in the counter filed by the respondents before this Court, nowhere furnished particulars of the assignment conditions. 12. The judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners squarely apply to the instant case. In Letters Sent from Plot No.338, Parvant Nagar, Borabaonda, Hyderabad and others Vs. Collector and District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and others (supra 3), this Court held that: SK,J W.P.No.1050 of 2012 11 “before passing resumption orders the revenue authorities among other things have to furnish full particulars as to the assignment conditions and whether there is alienable or not. Admittedly, in this case no notice was issued to the petitioners. In the same judgment, this Court held that, “the right of purchasers under such transaction under Rule 9 (g) of Rules cannot be curtailed simply because a certificate in Form-G is issued instead of sale deed”. In G.Shankar Reddy Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar and others (supra 2) at para No. 35 (k) this Court held that: “ The impugned order of the 2nd respondent is illegal, the 2nd respondent having come to an erroneous conclusion that the subject land is assigned land without bringing on record, considering or analysing the relevant facts, as to the date of assignment and whether the deed of assignment (in favour of the original assignee) contained a prohibition against alienation. There is no rational and legitimate finding of conclusion recorded that the land in the possession of the petitioner is an 'assigned land'. In Sunkara Sujana Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, (supra 8 ), at para No.9, this Court held that: SK,J W.P.No.1050 of 2012 12 “Thus, respondent No.3 has failed to discharge the initial burden placed on him to show that there is a prohibition of alienation. The registered sale transactions taken on as many as three occasions and the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued to the petitioners predecessors-in-title would establish that the subject land was treated as a free hold land”. 13. This Court time and again held that the revenue authorities have to issue notice for explanation before resumption of lands under A.P. Assigned Land (PoT) Act, 1971. But in the instant case the respondents without following the procedure as contemplated under the said Act issued the present impugned orders and the respondents failed to produce the assignment pattas and proceedings No.A3/269/1959 about the condition of non-alienable. 14. In view of the above explained circumstances the impugned order in Proceedings No. E1/452/2011 dated 01.09.2011 is liable to be set aside, accordingly, set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. SK,J W.P.No.1050 of 2012 13 15. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH, Date:03.01.2023 trr