THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 21194 of 2008 Oral order: The petitioners, who are two in number, claim to have jointly purchased agricultural land in an extent of Acs. 5.71 cents in Sy. Nos. 612/A3, 612/A1B, 612/B1, 612/B4, 612/B3, 613/1 and 613/2 o Mulakaluru revenue village, Narsaraopet Rural Mandal, Guntur District, under registered sale deed dated 01.07.2003 for valuable consideration, from their vendor Sri. Sk. Nazeer, who earlier purchased the same in small extents under five registered sale deeds between 18.07.1994 and 01.06.1996. According to the petitioners, the land purchased by them is patta land and not assigned land, and therefore, subsequent to the purchase, the divided the land into two equal shares and submitted applications under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the Rules framed thereunder to respondent No.3, namely the Tahsildar, Narsaraoet Mandal, who upon conducting an enquiry, issued pattadar pass books to the petitioners in respect of an extent of Acs. 2.85½ cents each on 06.08.2003. Thereafter, respondent No.2, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsaraopet, issued title deeds in respect of the said land to the petitioners. They further state that since the date of purchase, they are in possession and enjoyment of the land and that they also obtained agricultural loan by mortgaging the pattadar pass books and title deeds and also repaid the loan. While the matters stood thus, the petitioners state that respondent No.3 all of a sudden issued notices dated 25.01.2007 and 06.02.2007 to them under Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) stating that petitioner No.1 is in possession of assigned land in an extent of Acs. 3.65 cents while petitioner No. 2 is in possession of an extent of Acs. 2.85½, and called upon them to show cause as to why the land should not be resumed. Denying the allegations, the petitioners state that the submitted their explanation through legal notice dated 15.03.2007. Thereafter, respondent No.3 passed final orders dated 11.04.2007 under Section 4 of the Act, directing the Village Revenue Officer, to take possession of the land. The petitioners contending that the orders passed by respondent No.3 are contrary to law, arbitrary and non-application of mind, in that the notice issued by respondent No.3 states that they are in possession of land in an extent of Acs. 6.50 ½ cents, whereas they purchased land in an extent of Acs. 5.71 cents, and this apart the names of the assignees are also not mentioned, filed appeal before respondent No.2. Pursuant to the filing of appeal, the petitioners state that respondent No.2, issued notices dated 15.11.2007 and 16.08.2007 through their counsel calling upon the petitioners to appear for enquiry on 24.11.2007 and 29.08.2007. The petitioners state that they appeared for enquiry before respondent No.2 on the notified dates along with their counsel, but respondent No.2 did not pass any orders on the appeal. While the appeal is pending, the petitioners state that respondent No.3 issued another common notice dated 17.07.2008, served on them on 19.09.2008 stating that they are in possession of assigned land in an extent of Acs. 4.46 cents and called upon them to show cause while the said land should not be resumed. Upon receipt of the said common notice, the petitioners state that they approached respondent No. 3 and informed him that the appeal filed by them against the orders resuming the land is pending before respondent No.2, and while the appeal is pending, and without withdrawing the earlier notice, he is not justified in issuing another notice for resumption of the land, but it is the grievance of the petitioners that respondent No.3 without appreciating the said fact properly, tried to take possession of the land highhandedly and arbitrarily stating that they have to assign the lands to landless poor persons before commencement of the forthcoming elections. Hence, questioning the common notice dated 17.07.2008 issued by respondent No.3, for resumption of land in an extent of Acs. 4.86 cents, the petitioners filed the present writ petition, to declare the said notice as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice. After filing the writ petition, and upon coming to know that the appeal filed by the petitioners, was disposed of by respondent No.2, by order dated 16.05.2008, the petitioners filed petition in W.P.M.P. No. 31703 of 2008, praying to permit them to amend the prayer so as to question the order dated 16.05.2008, passed by respondent No.2 in the appeal filed by them, insofar as he directed respondent No.3 to issue fresh show cause notice and to conduct re-enquiry and the consequential notice dated 17.07.2008, issued by respondent No.3, for resuming the lands of the petitioners, as illegal and arbitrary, and this Court by order dated 01.12.2008 allowed the same. Respondent No.3 filed counter. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents reiterating the counter averments submitted that out of total extent of assigned land of Acs. 13.74 cents, the petitioners have jointly purchased an extent of Acs. 5.71 cents. As the purchase of assigned land is prohibited by law, the purchase made by the petitioners of the assigned land is void, and therefore, respondent No.3 after issuing notice and after affording opportunity to the petitioners, passed orders dated 11.04.2007, resuming the land. Against the resumption order, the petitioners filed appeal before respondent No.2, who passed final orders on 20.05.2008, remanding the matter to respondent No.3 for enquiry afresh as there was clear mismatch of survey numbers noted in the notice and the actual possession. Pursuant to the orders of remand, respondent No.3 issued the impugned common notice dated 17.07.2008, calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the land assigned to the original assignees, should not be cancelled and resumed, but the petitioners without submitted their explanation, filed the present writ petition. She submitted that since the impugned show cause notice has been issued by respondent No.3 pursuant to the orders of remand passed by respondent No.2 in the appeal filed by the petitioners, no fault can be found with their issuance, and prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. On 15.09.2008, this Court while ordering notice to the respondents, passed orders of status quo. On 29.09.2008 when the matter came up, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, produced copy of the final order dated 16.05.2008 passed by respondent No.2, allowing the appeal filed by the petitioners and remanding the matter to respondent No.2 and submitted that in pursuance of the said order, respondent No.3 issued the impugned notice. Considering the said fact, this Court directed the learned Assistant Government Pleader to produce the record, including the dispatch register and other material to prove that the order was communicated to the petitioner, and while directing the listing of the matter after “Dussera vacation”, extending the status quo order granted earlier, until further orders. Thereafter the matter was listed on 20.10.2008, and thereafter, it was adjourned several times to enable the respondents to file counter. The respondents filed their counter in the month of December, 2009, and thereafter, the matter was adjourned on more than six occasions at the request of one or the other counsel. Be that as it may, the respondents produced the record. A perusal of the record, particularly the order dated 16.05.2008, passed by respondent No.2 in the appeal filed by the petitioners would disclose that he has allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners on the ground that there is a clear mismatch of survey numbers mentioned in the show cause notice of respondent No.3 and the survey numbers mentioned by the petitioners in the appeal; that the order of respondent No.3 speaks of assignment of Ac. 0.80 cents in Sy. Nos. 612/B, 612/1 and 612/2 in Mulakaluru village, whereas Form-I notice and order of respondent No.3, seek resumption of land to an extent of Acs. 3.65 cents from the petitioners. That the order of respondent No. 2, lacks clarity. Holding so, respondent No.2 upheld the case of the petitioners and held that the prayer made by the petitioners in the appeal should be heeded. Having held so, he remanded the matter to respondent No. 3 with a direction to re-initiate the case afresh under the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act and the Rules made thereunder, by servicing notice in Form-I to the petitioners and complete the regular enquiry by following the due procedure and the principles of natural justice. The petitioners state that the land purchased by them is not assigned land, but patta land. The learned counsel representing them, during the course of arguments, submitted that respondent No.2 having allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners as prayed for, ought to have set aside the order passed by respondent No.3, and he committed an error in remanding the matter to respondent No.3 and directing him to initiate enquiry afresh under the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 and the Rules made thereunder. Therefore, the order passed by respondent No.2, to the extent it directed respondent No.3 to conduct enquiry afresh, and the consequential notices dated 17.07.2008, issued by respondent No.3, for the purpose of conducting fresh enquiry, is bad and liable to be set aside. Admittedly, the petitioners in the appeal filed by them before respondent No.2, prayed to set aside the orders dated orders dated 11.04.2007, passed by respondent No.3 under Section 4 of the Act, directing the Village Revenue Officer, to take possession of the land. Since respondent No.2 by order dated 16.05.2008 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners as prayed for, considering the nature of relief prayed for by the petitioners in the appeal, upon the appeal of the petitioners being allowed by respondent No.2, I am of the considered opinion that the order of respondent No.3 stood set aside, and the land restored to the petitioners. Respondent No.2 having considered the matter factually, with reference to the land claimed by them and the lands mentioned in the notice issued by respondent No.3, and having held that the petitioners are entitled to the relief as prayed for in the appeal, ought to have allowed the appeal as it is, in which case, the order of respondent No.3, would stand set aside and the land restored to the petitioners, but instead of doing that, respondent No.2, committed a grave error in remanding the matter to respondent No.3 and directing him to conduct enquiry afresh by issuing Form-I notice and following the principles of natural justice. If according to respondent No.2, the factual details of the lands as mentioned in the notice of respondent No.3 and as claimed by the petitioners were not correct, it was for respondent No.3 to take a decision, whether or not to correct them, but respondent No.2 having found that the petitioners were entitled to the relief claimed in the appeal, ought to have set aside the order of respondent No.3, and ought not to have directed respondent No.3 to conduct fresh enquiry, because the question as to whether or not there was any need to conduct fresh enquiry was for respondent No.3 to consider, and therefore, I am of the considered opinion, that the impugned order dated 16.05.2008 passed by respondent No.2, to the extent it directed respondent No.3 to conduct of fresh enquiry, while allowing the appeal filed by the petitioners, and the notices dated 17.07.2008 issued by respondent No.3, in consequence of such order, cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. Hence, the impugned order dated 16.05.2008 passed by respondent No.2, allowing the appeal filed by the petitioners, and to the extent, which it directed re-initiation of fresh enquiry, is set aside, and as a consequence thereof, the impugned notices issued by respondent No.3, also stand set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 11th June, 2010. KSR