IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11470 of 2005 Between: 1 Sri. Motappa S/o. G. Thirumappa, Hindu, R/o. Mechiri Village, Rayadurg Mandal, Anantapur District. 2 G. Shyam Raju, S/o. G. Motappa, Hindu, Mechiri Village, Rayadurg Mandal, Anantapur District. 3 G. Naga Raju, S/o. G. Motappa, Hindu, Mechiri Village, Rayadurg Mandal, Anantapur District. 4 G.Vekateshulu,S/o. G. Motappa, Hindu, Mechiri Village, Rayadurg Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, Anantapur District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Rayadurg Mandal, Anantapur. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the proceedings of the second respondent in form No.1, Notice under Rules of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (prohibition of Transfers) Rules 1977, dt. 04.05.2005 is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently set-aside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KARNAMRAMESH Counsel for the Respondent : GP FOR ASSIGNMENT FOR RAPP- 1&2 MR.CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA FOR R MR.M.VENKAT DIVAKAR FOR RPRO-VAK-3&4 The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: Petitioners assail the notice dated 4.5.2005 of the 2nd respondent, purporting to be a notice in Form No.1 under Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 1977 (for short ‘the Rules) proposing action for invalidating a transfer prohibited under Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). The second respondent mechanically issued the notice. In fact, Form No.1 requires the notice to state that the addressee is found to be in possession of assigned lands as specified in the notice; that it has come to the notice of the addressor that the addressee had transferred the assigned land in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 (2) of the Act and that in view of the said fact, the land is liable to be resumed to the Government, for violation of the provisions of Section 3; and the addressee should show cause within 15 days time why the assignment made be not cancelled. A notice must specify when and by what order the assignment was made; whether the assignment was with a condition of non-alienability as per the definition of ‘assigned land’ under Section 2 (1) of the Act and why the holding of the said land by the addressee (the petitioners) is violative of the provisions of the Act and is therefore actionable. This would provide a reasonable opportunity to respond. As the 2nd respondent’s notice impugned in the writ petition is a mechanical one in the nature of a ritual without informing the petitioners as to the case they are required to meet, the notice violates essential principles of fair procedure and cannot be sustained. It is accordingly quashed. The respondents are however at liberty to issue a notice to the petitioners informing the case that they have to meet and why the proposal to divest them of the possession of the lands is initiated. Writ Petition is allowed as above. But in the circumstances, without costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 19.4.2008 cvm