IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13875 of 2002 Between: Smt. Shareen Bhanu W/o. Qamruddin Sheik Tandur Ranga Reddy District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector Ranga Reddy District Hyderabad 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer Tandur Ranga Reddy District 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer Yalal Ranga Reddy District .....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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in entering into the lands admeasuring Ac. 7-02 gts., comprising in Sy. No. 52 an extent of Ac. 2-00; Sy. No. 52/44 an extent of Ac.1-38 gts., S.No. 52/72 an extentof Ac. 1-31 gts; and S.No. 52/73 an extent of Ac.1-13 gts., situate at kokat village, yalal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, belonging to the petitioner, as illegal, improper, unjust and without jurisdiction and further declare that the petitioner cannot be deprived of her property except in accordance with law, as it would be violative of Art. 300-A Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BOMMANARAMAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of constitution of India, petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in entering into her land admeasuring Ac.7.02 gts., purchased by her under various sale deeds, situated at Kokat Village, Yalal Mandal, R.R.District, as arbitrary and illegal. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner purchased Ac.7.02 gts. of land under various sale deeds for a valuable consideration in the year 1997. She purchased an extent of (1) Ac.1.13 gts. In Sy.No.52/73 from Ananthamma; (2) Ac.1.31 in Sy.No.52/72 from Narasamma; (3) Ac.1.38 gts. In Sy.No.52/44 from Papaiah; (4) Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.52 from Bheemappa; and (5) Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.52 from Venkatappa. After purchase, she made an application to the third respondent for mutation of her name in the revenue records. Accordingly, the third respondent through his proceedings No.B/3461/1998, dated 20.11.1998 ordered for mutation of the petitioner’s name in the revenue records in respect of the subject-lands. In pursuant to the said orders, pattadar pass book and land owner pass books were issued in favour of the petitioner. Since then, she has been in possession of the subject-lands. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Yalal Mundal, the third respondent herein filed a counter affidavit stating that the then Mandal Revenue Oficer, without proper verification of records, issued proceedings No.B/3461/98, dated 20.11.1998 for mutation of name of the petitioner in the revenue records and also issued Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds. Since the petitioner purchased the assigned lands contrary to Section 3(1) & (2) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, (for short ‘the Act’) the third respondent through his proceedings No.B/1291/02, dated 25.6.2002 called upon the petitioner to explain as to why the land should not be resumed as she has purchased the same contrary to Section 3(1) and (2) of the Act. When the notice was sought to be served on the petitioner, the Mandal Revenue Inspector made an endorsement on the show cause notice that the petitioner is not residing at Kokat Village and she is a permanent resident of Mumbai. Further, the Gram Sarpanch, Kokat Village had also made an endorsement on the show cause notice that the petitioner is not residing in the village. Therefore, a copy of the notice was displayed on the notice board of the Gram Panchayat and later the third respondent passed orders on 20.7.2002 resuming the land to the Government and directed the Mandal Revenue Inspector to resume the possession of the land. The cancellation orders dated 20.7.2002 were also sent to the Mandal Revenue Inspector for service of the same on the petitioner and the Assistant Secretary, Gram Panchayat, in the presence of Sarpanch of Kokat Village, affixed the said orders on the notice board in the Gram Panchayat Office. The possession of the land was taken over and the same has also been handed over to Sri Mazharuddin, Convener & Principal of A.P. Social Welfare Residential Schools & Junior Colleges, Ranga Reddy District for construction of school building for girls under ‘Velugu Programme’ on 24.7.2002. The only submission made by Sri Gangaiah Naidu, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the procedure as contemplated under Rule 3(2) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 (for short ‘the Rules’) has not been followed for resumption of the land. According to him, the notice under Rule 3 of the Rules has to be delivered on some adult male member of the family of the transferor or transferee at their last known place of residence or some conspicuous part of the assigned land. The said procedure has not been followed in the present case. The learned Special Government Pleader submits that since the report of the Sarpanch of Kokat Village, through whom the notice was sought to be served on the petitioner, disclosed that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Mumbai and she has not been residing in the village, the notice has been displayed on the notice board of the Gram Panchayat in due compliance with the procedure contemplated under Rule 3 of the Rules and necessary resumption order has been passed. Rule 3 contemplates issuance of notice and service by delivering a copy on transferor or transferee or some adult male member of the family of such transferor or transferee at their usual place of residence or to their authorized agent or by affixing a copy thereof at some conspicuous place of their last known place of residence or on some conspicuous part of the assigned land. Having regard to the above rule position and since the petitioner is strenuously disputing the service of notice, we deem it appropriate to treat the cancellation order passed by the third respondent dated 20.7.2002 to that of the notice issued under Section 3(1) and (2) of the Act and the petitioner is granted four weeks time from today to file her objections to the said show-cause notice and on filing such objections, the third respondent shall, after providing a personal hearing to the petitioner, pass necessary orders in the matter and communicate the same to the petitioner. Till such final orders are passed, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained in respect of possession of the land. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. _______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. 15.04.2008 Note:Issue C.C. in three days (B/o.) Tsr. To 1 The District Collector Ranga Reddy District Hyderabad 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer Tandur Ranga Reddy District 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer Yalal Ranga Reddy District 4 Two C.Cs. to G.P. for Assignment, High Court Buildings, (OUT) 5. Two C.D. copies.