The petitioner purchased Ac.0.10 guntas of land in survey No.735 of Kothapally Village, Karimnagar District, through a sale deed, dated 29.08.2006. He has traced the origin of his title to the land and submits that much prior to 25.07.1958, the land was assigned, and thereafter, several transactions of civil have taken place. According to him, the prohibition contained under Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act') does not apply to the land, since no condition was imposed prohibiting alienation of the land in survey No.735, when it was assigned. Reference is made to G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958, through which, conditions prohibiting alienation of the land are incorporated.

The Tahasildar, Karimnagar, the 1st respondent, issued a notice, dated 12.07.2012, to the petitioner and one K.Narsaiah, under Section 3 of the Act, requiring them to explain as to why the land be not resumed, since it was transferred in violation of the condition of assignment. The same is challenged in this writ petition.

Sri Ghanshyamdas Mandhani, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the notice is silent as to the date on which the land was assigned or as to existence of conditions prohibiting alienation. He contends that a Division Bench of this Court in a taken up case, being W.P.No.14795 of 2005 and batch,1 held that the notice issued under the Act for resumption of the land must specify various aspects, including the nature of entries in the Khasra pahani for the year 1954-55, the changes thereof, the date of notification, date of assignment etc. He submits that the impugned notice is contrary to law. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, submits that a notice was issued in the form prescribed under the Act and the Rules and the information that is directed by the Division Bench can certainly be furnished, in case the petitioner raises an objection in this regard.

The Act prohibits alienation of assigned lands, in contravention of the conditions of assignment. Certain exceptions are also provided. The Act was included in the IX schedule of the Constitution of India, and its constitutional validity was upheld. Forms I and II prescribed under the Act and the Rules are to be issued to the assignee and the purchaser, whenever steps are initiated for resumption. Except the name of the person to whom it is issued, two paragraphs are almost standard in nature and are to the effect that the notice is found to be transferor/transferee of the assigned land in contravention of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act and he is directed to show cause within 15 days as to why he be not merely evicted form the land. The schedule provides for the description of the property in detail as well as the name of the transferor/transferee.

On receipt of a notice, the defences of various categories can be taken, be it either by the assignee or the transferee. From the point of view of the assignee, it may be that the land was not assigned, or if assigned, there did not exist any condition prohibiting the alienation. Since the impact is felt mostly by the transferee, the defences open to him are more. In addition to the defences that are available to the assignee, a transferee can take the plea that he himself is a small farmer or that the transfer is not prohibited, such as when it was mortgaged, to a cooperative society or a nationalised bank and it was sold for foreclosure of the mortgage. Special conditions, such as where the land was assigned to ex-servicemen or political sufferers, can also be pressed into service.

The Division Bench in the judgment referred to above, dealt with two types of cases, one was a taken up case, being W.P.No.14795 of 2005 on the basis of a letter, dated 05.07.2005, addressed to the Chief Justice, alleging that 15000 acres of assigned land was grabbed by real estate persons. The other category comprised of, four writ petitions, filed challeng