THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA. W.P. No. 11623 of 2009 Oral order: The petitioner claims that he was granted D-Form patta in respect of land in an extent of Acs. 2.99 cents in Sy. No. 39/1, Pedda Bommalapuram village, Dornala Mandal, Prakasham district on 20.10.1997, and that since then he is in enjoyment and possession of the same. While so, respondent No.1, namely the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Veligonda Project, issued notice dated 03.05.2007 to the petitioner stating that the land in question is required for the purpose of digging canal under the Poola Subbaiah Veligonda Project, and called upon the petitioner to appear before him on 09.05.2007 along with necessary documents for the purpose of determining the compensation payable. As directed, the petitioner states that he appeared before respondent No.1 along with the necessary documents, including D-Form patta, for determining and payment of compensation for the land. Thereafter, the petitioner states that he had no information as to the compensation payable to him. While so, respondent No.2, namely the Tahsildar, Dornala, Prakasham District, issued notice dated 28.01.2009 in Form-2 under Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, calling upon him to show cause within 15 days as to why the land assigned to him cannot be taken back by canceling the patta granted in his favour. Questioning the said notice, the petitioner filed the present writ petition contending that since he has been in possession and enjoyment of the land, on the strength of patta granted to him, the respondents are not justified in tacking back the same without paying compensation, which is illegal and arbitrary. On 16.06.2009, the writ petition was admitted and notice was ordered. The respondents in spite of receiving the notice, have not filed counter. On 30.06.2009, upon hearing the counsel for the petitioner, this Court directed respondent No.2 to appear before the Court in person along with the record on the next date of hearing and defend his case. Today, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared, and both of them filed separate counters. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 reiterating the counter averments submitted that initially, the land in question was assigned in favour of one Jillella Venkamma, by then Tahsildar, Markapur, vide proceedings R. Dis. No. 1022/DAR/1384 F, dated 30.03.1975, and as the said assignee violated the conditions of assignment, the land was resumed in favour of the Government by the then Tahsildar, vide his proceedings in D. Dis No. 471/95, dated 21.04.1995. Subsequently, the land in question was assigned in favour of the petitioner by the Tahsildar vide proceedings R.Dis. No. 7/DIR/1407/F, dated 20.10.1997. As the land in question, among others was required for excavation of Teegaleru Canal under Poola Subbaiah Veligonda Project, respondent No.1 issued notice dated 03.05.2007 to all the assignees calling upon them to produce D.K. patta for payment of ex gratia. Responding to the same, several assignees attended the enquiry, but the petitioner did not. However, on 05.08.2007, one Sri Nama Subba Rao, Advocate, Markapur, submitted representation to respondent No.1 claiming ex gratia for the land in question stating that he purchased the same from the wife of the petitioner, namely Botchu Aruna, under an unregistered sale deed dated 14.12.1998, and since then, he is in possession of the same, and that he cannot be dispossessed without payment of compensation. He submitted that petitioner sold the land in question in violation of the conditions of assignment and the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition on Transfer) Act, 1977, the land was resumed in favour of the Government in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 1185, dated 27.07.1981, and the possession thereof was handed over to the Irrigation Department on 10.02.2008, in pursuance of the proceedings in Rc.A/21/2007, dated 07.01.2008. Therefore, neither the petitioner nor the purchaser are entitled to any ex gratia, and prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Sri Nama Subba Rao, who claims to have purchased the land in question from the wife of the assignee, filed application praying to implead himself as party-respondent, which was ordered vide separate order, and he is brought on record as respondent No.3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 submitted the before executing agreement of sale dated 14.12.1998 in favour of respondent No.3, the petitioner’s wife, had executed an agreement dated 15.05.1989, and in pursuance thereof, she had put respondent No.3 in possession of the land, and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same, and therefore, he being the owner of the land in question, is entitled to compensation. He submitted that the petitioner concealing the fact of his having sold the land in question in favour of respondent No.3 through his wife, has filed the present writ petition claiming compensation. Hence, he prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the record placed before the Court. Admittedly, the land in question, along with other lands is taken by the official respondents for Teegaleru Canal under Poola Subbaiah Veligonda Project. Though the petitioner contends that in pursuance of the notice dated 03.05.2007 issued by the respondents for payment of ex gratia, he appeared before the official respondents for enquiry on 09.05.2007 along with the necessary documents, including DKT patta, the same is denied by the official respondents, and it is specifically contended by them in the counter that except the petitioner, all other assignees and land owners, who were issued notices, appeared for the enquiry. However, it is their case that on 05.08.2007, one person by name, Sri Nama Subba Rao, Advocate, Markapur, made representation to respondent No.1 stating that he purchased the land in question under unregistered sale deed dated 14.12.1998 from the wife of the petitioner, who was witness to the sale transaction, and claimed compensation. The said Sri Nama Subba Rao, got impleaded as respondent No.3, filed counter taking the very same plea as taken by the official respondents in their counters. According to the official respondents, since the sale effected by the wife of the petitioner in favour of respondent No.3 under unregistered sale deed dated 14.12.1998 is in violation of the conditions of assignment and the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition on Transfer) Act, 1977, neither the petitioner nor respondent No.3 is entitled to any compensation. Though the official respondents contend that neither the petitioner nor respondent No.3 are entitled to payment of ex gratia, the fact remains, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, fairly admitted that the official respondents have not communicated any order rejecting the claim of either the petitioner or respondent No.3 for payment of ex gratia. However, stating that since neither the petitioner nor respondent No.3 is entitled to any ex gratia, respondent No.2, vide proceedings Rc.A/21/2007, dated 07.01.2008, resumed the land in favour of the Government in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 1185, dated 27.07.1981, and handed over the possession thereof to the Irrigation Department. Though the official respondents claim to have resumed the land in favour of the Government vide proceedings dated 07.01.2008, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the said order of resumption was not communicated to him. The official respondents contend that the order of resumption was communicated to the petitioner under Certificate of Posting, but this fact also is denied by the petitioner, contending that no such order was received by him. Be that as it may, when once respondent No.2 passed orders resuming the land in favour of the Government vide proceedings dated 07.01.2008 and handed over the possession thereof to the Irrigation Department, I fail to understand, how he could have issued the impugned notice dated 28.01.2009 to the petitioner, to show cause within 15 days as to why the land in question shall not be taken. At this juncture, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing on behalf of the official respondents submitted that by mistake such notice was issued and undertook that respondent No.2 would withdraw the same immediately. Though the official respondents in their counters have taken a stand that neither the petitioner nor respondent No.3 are entitled to any compensation, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, fairly admitted that before arriving at such a finding, respondent No.2 has not issued any notice whatsoever either to the petitioner or respondent No.3. Admittedly, the petitioner was assigned the land in question, and if respondent No.3 claimed that the land was sold to him by the wife of the petitioner, to which he was a witness, then in such an event, the course open for respondent No.2 was to conduct an enquiry as to who is entitled to ex gratia, by issuing notices both to the petitioner and respondent No.3, calling upon them to produce necessary material in support of their respective cases. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: Respondent No.2 is directed to conduct an enquiry as to who is entitled to ex gratia – whether the petitioner or respondent No.3. In this regard, he shall issued notices, both to the petitioner and respondent No.3 calling upon them to produce the material in support of their respective claims. Thereupon, he shall decide the questions as to whether the petitioner had really sold the land in question to respondent No.3 through his wife, and if so, whether such sale effected, was in violation of the provisions of A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition on Transfer) Act, 1977, and whether in such a situation, the petitioner or respondent No.3 or none are entitled to ex gratia, and then pass appropriate orders. This exercise shall be completed by respondent No.2 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 13th July, 2009 KSR