THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH W.P.No.15555 of 1996 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner questions the order, dated 29-10-1995, passed by the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in resuming the land to an extent of Ac.2-23 gts., in Sy.No.151/3/1, situated at Himayathnagar Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from the possession of the petitioner and restoring the same in favour of the legal heirs of the original assignee Choti Balaiah. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the said resumption order was passed by the 3rd respondent without issuing any notice in Form-I and without following due process of law. One Mr.D.Srinivas Reddy, S/o.Dharma Reddy, who was working as Tahsildar, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, during the month of September, 2007, filed counter affidavit. No where in the counter, it is stated that whether notice in Form-I, dated 07-09-1995, was served on the petitioner or not before passing resumption order, dated 29-10-1995, but it is stated that the land to an extent of Ac.2-23 gts., in Sy.No.151/3/1 situated at Himayathnagar village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was originally assigned in favour of Choti Balaiah, S/o.Sayanna in the year 1961- 62 under new assignment policy, which is heritable but not alienable. He sold the said land to one R.M.V.R.Krishna Rao in the year 1967. Subsequently, the petitioner herein purchased the land in question contrary to the provisions of Section 3 of the A.P.Assigned lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “the Act”). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per Sale Deed, dated 18-08-1998, the petitioner purchased the land in question as well as another extent of Ac.2-23 gts. in Sy.No.151/3/2 from one R.M.V.R.Krishna Rao. It is stated that Choti Balaiah sold the land in question in favour of one C.J.Ramakrishna Rao, after obtaining permission from the then Tahsildar vide D.Dis.No.A4/8370/1966, dated 03-03-1967 and the said C.J.Ramakrishna Rao sold the said land in favour of R.M.V.R.Krishna Rao and the said R.M.V.R.Krishna Rao sold the said land in favour of the petitioner. Thus, it is stated that the land in question is not an assigned land. Further, in the counter it was vaguely stated that it was an assigned land in the year 1961-62, but no particulars of the assignment and the proceedings have been mentioned in the counter. It is stated that as it was not an assigned land, the then Tahsildar issued permission for alienation of the land in question under Sections 47 and 48 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act XX1 of 1950. I am of the opinion that if the land in question is an assigned land, the question of granting permission for alienation of the said land does not arise. If it is patta land, as there was a prohibition to transfer even patta land, without obtaining permission as required under Sections 47 and 48 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act XX1 of 1950, the same cannot be transferred. Therefore, the questions that arise for consideration are as to whether the land in question is an assigned land and if so, whether any notice in Form-I has been issued in favour of the petitioner or not? From a reading of the counter, it is not clear with regard to service of notice on the petitioner and the particulars of the assignment proceedings have also not been mentioned. Therefore, I am of the opinion that instead of relegating the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order, it is just and proper to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the 3rd respondent, so as to enable the 3rd respondent to issue fresh notice to the petitioner in Form-I as prescribed under Rule 3 of the Act and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act. I am also of the opinion that for filing such an irresponsible counter without any factual aspects with reference to the records, appropriate departmental action requires to be initiated against the then Mandal Revenue Officer, who filed counter affidavit. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order and the matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent to issue fresh notice to the petitioner in Form-I as prescribed under Rule 3 of the Act and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, the 2nd respondent is directed to take appropriate departmental action against the then Mandal Revenue Officer, who filed counter affidavit, for the aforesaid lapses. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 26-08-2010 Prv