THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P. No.5318 of 2006 Dated: 03-02-2011 Between: Shanti Doshi ..Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Adilabad District at Adilabad and others. ..Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P. No.5318 of 2006 ORDER: The order dated 20-02-2006 of the 1st respondent rejecting a revision against the order dated 31-08-2002 of the 2nd respondent, by which order an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 10-06-1988 of the 3rd respondent was dismissed, is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner claims to own and to be in possession of Acs.05- 00 gts. of land in survey No.21/12 at Dasnapur Village, Adilabad Mandal & District. She purchased the property under a registered sale deed, dated 16-01-1984, vide Doc.No.64-A/1984, from one Sri Wahabuddin and has been in possession and enjoyment since then. According to the petitioner the land was a Government land prior to 1950 and during the year 1951 – 1952 the land was assigned to one Sri Abdul Gafoor. On the death of Sri Abdul Gafoor, his nephew, Sri Wahabuddin, came into possession and enjoyment of the property and sold it to her. The 3rd respondent on the basis of orders of the Collector, Adilabad, dated 17-09-1987, initiated steps to resume Government land in survey No.21/12 at Dasnapur Village, Adilabad Mandal & District, wherever assignees allocated the land violated the conditions of assignment. The land of the petitioner in survey No.21/12 was one such land. Without issuing a notice either to Sri Abdul Gafoor (deceased by then); to Sri Wahabuddin, who was in possession after the demise of Sri Abdul Gafoor or to the petitioner who purchased the land under a registered sale deed in 1984, the 3rd respondent by the order dated 10-06-1988 cancelled the assignment made in favour of several enumerated persons including Sri Abdul Gafoor in respect of land in survey No.21/12 at Dasnapur Village, Adilabad Mandal & District, and directed the resumption of the land to the State, immediately. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent under the provisions of Section 4 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act No.9/1997. The 2nd respondent – appellate authority rejected the appeal by super-adding a reason that the petitioner purchased the assigned land from a person who has no legal rights to claim succession of the property of Sri Abdul Gafoor and that Sri Wahabuddin, the vendor of the petitioner, had not established his title to the property. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision to the 1st respondent. The revision was rejected by recording that the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 have been held to have retrospective effect by a judgment of a full bench of this Court; that the land of an extent of Acs.05–00 gts. in survey No.21/12 at Dasnapur Village, Adilabad Mandal & District, is Government land; that the sale of the land to the petitioner by a registered sale deed on 16-01-1984 is violative of Section 3 of the said Act and that the title of Sri Wahabuddin to effect alienation in favour of the petitioner is also unclear. None of the three authorities/respondents herein considered the effect of the failure of the 3rd respondent to issue a notice to the petitioner before cancelling the assignment in favour of a deceased individual Sri Abdul Gafoor and directing resumption of the land to the Government. Though it is axiomatic that no title would pass to the petitioner unless Sri Wahabuddin had title to the land conveyed to the petitioner under the registered sale deed, dated 16-01-1984, vide Doc.No.64-A/1984, and notwithstanding that such alienation is registered, principles of fair play require that the State and its instrumentalities should issue a notice to a person likely to be affected by any order. When the 3rd respondent passed the order dated 10-06- 1988 resuming the land to the State he issued a notice to nobody. He could not have issued a notice to Sri Abdul Gafoor, since the individual was dead by then. He issued a notice neither to Sri Wahabuddin, the vendor of the petitioner nor to the petitioner. In the circumstances, the order dated 10-06-1988 suffered a fatal infirmity of violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, was a void order and should have been so declared by the respondent Nos.2 & 3 in appeal and in revision. They, however, failed to address themselves to this fatal infirmity in the order of the 3rd respondent. For this reason, the order of the 3rd respondent dated 10- 06-1988; the appellate order of the 2nd respondent dated 31-08-2002 and the revisional order of the 1st respondent dated 20-02-2006 cannot be sustained and are, accordingly, quashed. It is, however, open to the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner after due notice and opportunity, for resumption of the lands from her; either if the alienation by Sri Wahabuddin in her favour is in violation of the provisions of the Act 9/97 or if the alienation is by Sri Wahabuddin and he had no entitlement to succeed to the property of Sri Abdul Gafoor, the original assignee. The due process of a notice and opportunity must however precede any action by the respondents. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is allowed and to reiterate the orders of the respondent Nos.1 to 3, dated 10-06-1988, 31-08-2002 and 20-02-2006, are quashed but with liberty to initiate proceedings de novo, in accordance with law. There shall however be no order as to costs. ________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J February 03, 2011 ndr