THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.23851 OF 2011 ORDER: The proceedings of the first respondent dated 16.08.2011, whereby the first respondent directed the second respondent to cancel the assignment pattas granted in favour of the petitioners, and to initiate criminal proceedings, is under challenge in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary and illegal. By proceedings dated 16.08.2011 addressed by the first respondent to the second respondent, the latter was informed that the Vigilance and Enforcement officials had inspected the land in Survey No.82 of an extent of Ac.3-95 cents of Kayam Village on a complaint petition filed alleging that the third respondent, Ex-revenue officer, Tirupati Municipality, had purchased Ac.3-95 cents of land from Scheduled Tribe beneficiaries. The first respondent recommended that action be taken by cancelling the assignment, made earlier in favour of the assignees, for violation of the conditions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (A.P. Act 9 of 1977); and initiate criminal action under Section 7 of A.P. Act 9 of 1977 against those who had acquired assigned lands in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(2) of A.P. Act 9 of 1977. Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, would assert that the petitioners are the original assignees; they have not alienated the land in favour of the third respondent; it is the second respondent who is the competent authority to initiate action under A.P. Act 9 of 1977; the impugned proceedings dated 16.08.2011 would result in the second respondent merely following the dictates of the first respondent in evicting the petitioners from the lands in question after cancellation of the assignment; and thereby render the notices, issued in Forms - I and II under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 1977 (for short, “the Rules”), illusory. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment), on instructions, states that the second respondent would take action, independently, in terms of the provisions of A.P. Act 9 of 1977, and no reliance can be placed by the petitioners on the internal correspondence between the first and the second respondents. While Section 3(2) of A.P. Act 9 of 1977 prohibits transfer of assigned lands including by way of alienation, and for cancellation of the assigned land consequent thereto, Rule 3 read with Forms - I and II of the Rules requires both the original assignee and the alleged purchaser to be put on notice and be given an opportunity to submit their objections thereto within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of the notice. Any observation made by a superior authority may well influence the decision of the competent authority while exercising his jurisdiction under A.P. Act 9 of 1977, thereby rendering the entire exercise of a fair hearing a mere ritual and an empty formality. With a view to ensure that a fair and reasonable opportunity is afforded to the petitioners and the third respondent in accordance with principles of natural justice, I consider it appropriate to direct the second respondent, on his initiating action against the petitioners and the third respondent under the provisions of A.P. Act 9 of 1977 read with the Rules made thereunder, to examine the objections, if any filed by them, independently without being influenced by any observations made in the letter addressed to him by the first respondent. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J August 27, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.23851 OF 2011 August 27, 2011 MD