IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.12369 of 1996 Between: Chadavula Jagadamba & another ..... PETITIONERS AND The District Collector, Srikakulam and two others .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus to declare the Proceedings issued in Rc.No.1674/95B, dated 19-1-1996, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and restrain the respondents herein from resuming theland in S.No.522/2 measuring He.2.45 cents situate in Raghunadhapuram village, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Y.VISWESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.12369 of 1996 O R D E R: This Writ Petition was filed initially seeking a Mandamus restraining the respondents from resuming the land in Sy.No.522/2 ad measuring Ac.2.45 cts situated at Raghunadhapuram village, Tekkali Mandal of Srikakulam District. Subsequently, the prayer was amended seeking to declare the Proceedings in Rc.No.1674/95-B, dated 19-1- 1996 issued by the 3rd respondent, whereunder the D-Form patta issued in the name of the father of the petitioners was sought to be cancelled and resumed, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. According to the petitioners, their father late Atla Suryanarayana was assigned land to an extent of Ac.2.45 cts in Sy.No.522/2 of Raghunadhapuram village, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam district by the then Tahsildar vide his Proceedings B.O.R.No.2119/71, dated 23-8- 1971. Petitioners’ father brought the said land under cultivation, raised paddy crop and was paying land revenue to the Government. In 10(1) account the name of their father was entered as D-Form pattadar. While that being so, on 1[a1]-3-1995, their father died leaving behind them, who are his daughters. It is the case of the petitioners that there are no other legal heirs and by operation of the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, they being Class I heirs, inherited the land and were cultivating the same. In fact, petitioners applied to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tekkali for issuance of a legal heir certificate and in turn, the Mandal Revenue Officer, after causing detailed enquiry, issued legal heir certificate to them on 3-6-1995. Thereafter, the Tahsildar passed the impugned Order without issuing any notice or conducting any enquiry into the matter, stating that the assigned land was not being used for agricultural purpose, for which it was assigned, the assignee died and the whereabouts of his family members are not known, an extent of Ac.0.09 cts was sold to Bhagyalaxmi and others, but the land was restored to the original assignee and the land is required for public purpose of speedy construction of weaker section houses through establishment of Nirmita Kendra; thus, the assigned land excluding an extent of Ac.0.30 cts which was given for construction of Police Station, was sought to be resumed. Assailing the said Order, the present Writ Petition is filed. While admitting the Writ Petition on 28-6-1996, an interim order was passed directing the respondents not to evict the petitioners from the land in question till the disposal of the Writ Petition. The said order was made absolute on 7-9-1998. It appears earlier, the very Writ Petition was allowed by an Order dated 19-11-2002. However, when the respondents filed an appeal being W.A.No.227 of 2004, the Order dated 19-11-2002 was set aside and the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication with liberty to the petitioners to apply for amendment of the prayer seeking to quash the Order dated 19-1-1996 passed by the M.R.O., Tekkali. Thus, an amendment petition was filed and the same was ordered on 14-11-2006. In the counter filed by the respondents, the same stand as was taken in the impugned order was taken. It is inter alia stated that the original assignee has not cultivated the land and even the petitioners also did not cultivate it. Apart from the fact that Ac.0.30 cts of land was given to the police station, Ac.0.09 cts was sold to third parties and Ac.0.06 cts of land was occupied by private persons. Further, the land is needed for the public purpose of establishment of Nirmitha Kendra for manufacturing latest technology bricks and door frames etc., for speedy construction of weaker section housing colony. Therefore, there was no other option for the respondents except to resume the land as per the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act,1977. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the construction of police station in an area of Ac.0.30 cts does not constitute alienation. It is the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tekkali, who issued Proceedings Roc.No.1074/86, dated 17-1-1988 directing alienation and the father of the petitioners gave consent without any consideration, gratuitously, and there is no proof that the father of the petitioners sold Ac.0.09 cts of land and the allegation that Ac.0.06 cts of land purported to have been in the occupation of third parties is not correct. Petitioners are in physical possession and enjoyment of the property, since the date of death of their father and no part of the land was sold as alleged by the respondents nor it is under occupation of others. As per Section 3(1) of the Act, the transfer shall deemed never to have been made, under Section 3(3) any transfer shall be deemed null and void and under Section 4, the land should be restored to the original assignee or legal heirs and only where it is not reasonably practicable to restore the land to such assignee or legal heir, resume the assigned land. Further, the learned counsel states that no notice of any kind was issued to the petitioners before passing the resumption order. Learned Government Pleader reiterated the same stand as was taken in the counter and supported the impugned Order. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned Order and other material made available on record. Insofar as the issuance of notice or conducting any enquiry before passing the impugned Order is concerned, the respondents have stated that the addresses of the petitioners were not available and, therefore, no notice could be caused on them. This itself shows that there was gross violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order. Therefore, I am of the opinion that since it is an admitted fact that no notice of any kind was issued to the petitioners before passing the impugned order, the same suffers from gross violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned Order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Apart from that, there is no evidence on record to show that there was any transaction, such as, sale in favour of the third parties or occupation of 6 cts of land by private persons. In fact, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tekkali who issued the proceedings dated 17-1-1988 admitted the construction of police station for which the father of the petitioners gave consent, without any consideration, gratuitously. For all the above reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The Writ Petition is thus allowed. No order as to costs. 11-7-2008 prk [a1]