IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.812 of 2001 Between: Nomula Gangadhar S/o Buchanna Pachalanadukuda Village, Vailpoor Mandal, Nizambad Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The RDO, Nizamabad. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Vailpur, Nizamabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs order or direction, declaring the order dt.08-12-2000 in proceedings No.A2/3160/2000 on the ﬁle of R1 as illegal, arbitrary & violative of Principles of Natural Justice award costs. Counsel for the Petitioner:MRKRAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.812 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner challenges the order dated 08-12-2000, passed by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Nizamabad, in proceedings bearing No.A2/3160/2000, cancelling the assignment made in favour of the petitioner’s vendor, on the ground that the same is violative of the principles of natural justice and is accordingly unsustainable in law. The averments made in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition reﬂect that the petitioner claimed to be a small farmer having less than 3 acres of land in Pachalnadukuda Village, Nizamabad District. He purchased an extent of 20 gts. of land in Sy.No.508/RV of Akloor village of Vailpoor Mandal, Nizamabad District, from one Sri Odde Narasimha. It is his case that he did not know that his vendor was assigned the said land and being ignorant of this fact, he purchased the land for a valuable consideration under an unregistered Sale Deed, dated 14-08-1989. He claimed to have developed the land and put it to agricultural use. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned proceedings dated 08-12-2000 were passed by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Nizamabad, cancelling the original assignment made in favour of his vendor to the extent of 20 gts. on the ground that the assignee had sold away the said land to the petitioner. He complains that no notice was given to him and no enquiry was conducted into the matter. The petitioner raised various other contentions upon merits, including the issue of jurisdiction. By order dated 23-01-2001 in W.P.M.P.No.949 of 2001 in W.P.No.812 of 2001, this court granted interim suspension of the proceedings under challenge. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Vailpoor Mandal, Nizamabad District, it is stated that a notice was issued under Section 3(2) of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 to the assignee by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Nizamabad, under proceedings No.A2/3160/2000, dated 28-09-2000, and the same was served upon the petitioner. This aspect was disputed. This court directed the learned Government Pleader to produce the records and having perused the same, it is found that the show-cause notice bearing No.A2/3160/2000, dated 28-09-2000, issued by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Nizamabad, was only served upon the original assignee and there is no indication of the same having been served upon the petitioner. The statement made in the counter affidavit to the contra is, therefore, factually incorrect. In view of the fact that the impugned proceedings were passed in violation of Rule 3 of the Rules framed under Section 9 of the Act of 1977 and also the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the petitioner, being in actual physical occupation of the land, was denied an opportunity to raise his objections to the proposed action under the show-cause notice, dated 28-09- 2000, this court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be suﬃciently served by setting aside the proceedings impugned in this writ petition permitting the respondents to initiate proceedings afresh, duly aﬀording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It would be open to the petitioner to raise all such contentions as are available to him in law in response to such a notice. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 20-10-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VEENA}