IMPORTANT POINT
Both transferor and transferee must receive proper notices in resumption proceedings to uphold natural justice and procedural fairness.

JUDGMENT :

(R. Raghunandan Rao, J.)

Heard the learned Additional Advocate General and Sri P. Rama Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. As all these writ appeals arise out of a common order, they are being disposed of together.

3. The contesting respondents in W.A.Nos.438 and 439 of 2024 are the legal representatives and the sons of the original assignees in whose favour D-Form pattas had been issued earlier in relation to certain extents of land in Ravada Village. The contesting respondents in W.A.No.437 of 2024 are the legal representatives of the persons, who had purchased these lands.

4. These lands are now being taken over by the government for establishment of a green field Airport at Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District. These lands were taken over by way of resumption proceedings of the Tahsildar, Bhogapuram Mandal on the ground that the conditions of allotment had been violated in as much as the lands had been sold by the assignees to certain purchasers and such alienations would be in violation of the assignment conditions and such land can be resumed under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh / Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short „the Act?).

5. The said resumption of land, without payment of compensation, was challenged, by the contesting respondents, in W.P.Nos.3052, 2742, 3991 and 29883 of 2022. The contention of the contesting respondents was that similarly situated persons who had been assigned land, had been paid compensation when the lands were resumed. However, the lands of the contesting respondents were resumed, on the ground of violation of assignment conditions, without payment of compensation.

6. The challenge to the resumption was on two grounds. Firstly, necessary procedural rules, set out under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Rules, 2007 (for short „the Rules?) were not followed. Secondly, the lands had been alienated by way of registered documents in 1981 itself and subsequently, the purchasers of the land had also been given pattadar passbooks and their names had been entered in the revenue records. As such, resumption after such a long period is not permissible.

7. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, was pleased to hold that there has been violation of the Rules and had set aside the order of resumption, with a further direction to the authorities to pay compensation to the contesting respondents, following the judgment in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer vs. Mekala Pandu, 2004 (2) ALD 451.

8. Aggrieved by the said common order, dated 13.12.2023, these writ appeals have been filed.

9. The learned Single Judge had held that Rule 3 of the Rules required that the assignee as well as the purchaser would have to be served with notices under Form-I and Form-II and non-service of either Form, to either person, is sufficient to vitiate the entire process of resumption. The learned Single Judge applied the ratio laid down in M/s. Sudalagunta Sugars Limited vs. The Joint Collector, Chittoor & Anr., 2017 (2) ALD 529; Dipak Babaria & Anr., vs. State of Gujarat, (2014) 3 SCC 502; Renew Wind Energy (TN2) Private Limited vs. State of Telangana, 2020 (1) ALT 245 and Dasari Narayana Rao vs. Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampalli, 2010 (6) ALD 536. Further, the learned Single Judge also noticed the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of B. Adinarayana Murthy vs. Collector Ananthapur District and Anr., 2000 (1) ALD 168 wherein, it was held that resumption after long lapse of 34 years, should not be permitted.

10. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants would submit that the scheme of the Act read with the Rules would show that the assignees, who have sold away the land, would have to be served with notices under Form-I while the purchasers would have to be served with Form-II and there is no need for both the Forms to be