THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.A.NO.1772 OF 2008 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard both the counsel. 2. The unsuccessful writ petitioners before the learned single Judge in W.P.No.26707 of 2008 dated 08.12.2008, are the appellants herein. 3. It appears that the writ petitioners were assigned with small extents of land in Sy.Nos.64/1, 64/2 and 64/3 situate at Pedda Amberpet, Hayatnagar Mandal in Rangareddy District. On the ground that there were certain violations under Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’), a show cause notice dated 19.9.2008 was issued in Form No.1, calling for the explanation from the writ petitioner within a period of fifteen days, as to why they shall not be evicted from the lands assigned to them. 4. The relevant portion of the impugned notice dated 19.9.2008 is extracted as under, for ready reference: “You are hereby directed to show cause with (15) days of receipt of this notice as to why you should not be summarily evicted from the said land/lands and as to why any crop or other product raised on the land/lands and any buildings or other construction erected or any thing deposited thereon should not be forfeited.” 5. From the above, it is not clear, for what purpose the land was assigned and what are the violations, for which the writ petitioners were called upon to explain regarding eviction. Further, the time for submitting the explanation, as per the averment of the counsel for the writ petitioners, would expire by 1.11.2008. Even before the said period had expired, the impugned consequential proceedings dated 22.10.2008 had been issued, canceling the assignment of the lands referred to above. 6. Challenging the said action, the writ petition has been filed and the learned single Judge, having considered the matter, on merits, held that there is an alternative remedy under the Act to file an appeal under Section 4-A(1) of the Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer and in the light of the said effective alternative remedy, the writ petition does not lie. Accordingly the writ petition was dismissed. However, in order to protect the interest of the writ petitioners, status quo was directed to be maintained. Challenging the said order, the present writ appeal is field. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this court in LETTER v. COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE[1], wherein at paragraph no.54, it was held as under: “Whenever any proceedings are to be initiated by the revenue authorities for resumption of the land, they have to specify: (a)the nature of occupancy rights granted, namely, whether occupancy rights were granted on collection of market value or free of market value in favour of the landless poor persons; (b)whether the said land falls within the notified area restricting inalienability as per the notification issued under Section 58-A of the Telangana Area Land Revenue Act. (c) Whether Act No.9 of 1977 applies to the nature of occupancy rights/assignment granted; (d)if any changes in the revenue records are effected, reasons for change from the original entries in khasra pahani of 1954-55 or subsequent to the same; in the notice to be issued for enabling them to make an effective explanation to meet the contentions and submit their explanation to the action proposed. Unless such particulars are furnished for submitting an effective explanation, lands cannot be resumed merely basing upon the revenue entries so made.” 8. From the above, it is clear that all the particulars, which are necessary and relevant, shall be put to the affected persons, in order to enable them to offer explanations effectively. Otherwise, it is obvious that issuing of such a notice, would be an empty formality. 9. In view of the above judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this court, and also in view of our observations, we are of the considered view that the show cause notice, which was issued to the writ petitioners, does not disclose all the material particulars, in order to facilitate them to come forward with an explanation. Therefore, such a notice, though permissible under law, is not really effective and it is insufficient. Accordingly, the same should be ignored. 10. Therefore, following the said judgment of the Division Bench, the impugned notice dated 19.9.2008 and the consequential order dated 22.10.2008 canceling the assignment, are liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 11. However, we make it clear that the respondents are at liberty to issue a show notice with particulars, as postulated by the Division Bench and as observed by us and after receipt of the explanation within the period prescribed, consider the same, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. 12. It is made clear that this order shall not be considered as having expressed any opinion on merits. 13. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. -------------------------------- D.S.R.VARMA,J ----------------------------------- G.CHANDRAIAH,J DATE:23.12.2008 AVS [1] 2008(5) ALD 626 (DB)