Point of law : Registered sale transaction in respect of the subject land on different occasions of petitioner’s predecessors in title established that the subject land was treated as free hold land.

ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

2. The petitioner filed this writ petition impugning the proceedings of respondent No.2 contained in No. B1/1665/2008, dated 24.06.2008 as confirmed by respondent No.1 in his proceedings No.L/2816/2008, dated 28.06.2013 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural of justice.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is the owner of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3.39 Gts in Survey No.321 of Malkapur Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District and have been in continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment since from the date of purchase i.e. in the year 1996. The said land was purchased by the petitioner from Somi Reddy Laxma Reddy and others for a valuable consideration and the said sale was regularized by the then MRO and pursuant to which the petitioner’s name was also recorded in ROR register while granting pattadar passbook and title deed. The petitioner, subsequently, sold the said land to one Smt Juvvadi Padma W/o Pruthvidar Rao, vide sale deed dated 05.03.2001 bearing document No.1327/2001. Originally the subject land was owned and possessed by one Devunoori Narasaiah and his father Rajaiah even prior to 1955 onwards and the same is evident from the revenue records and the said Devunoori Narasaiah sold the subject land to Jakku Laxma Goud, S/o Naga Lingam vide sale deed dated 26.11.1969 and that subsequently, one J.Rama Goud and others, who are the successors of J.Laxma Goud sold the said land to Somi Reddy Laxma Reddy and others in the year 1989, which was in turn they sold to the petitioner in the year 1996. Bet that as it may, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 24.06.2008 under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. The petitioner submitted explanation on 24.05.2008 contending that the subject land is not a Government land and it is a patta land of Devunoori Narasaiah right from the period prior to 1957 i.e. much prior to the commencement of Act 9 of 1977. The 2nd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings without conducting proper enquiry and without verifying the records. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the 1st respondent under Section 4(A) of Act 9 of 1977 and the same was dismissed on 28.06.2013 without considering the grounds raised in the appeal and without assigning any reasons. The petitioner relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v Rajendra Prasad Jain, (2008) 15 SCC 711 wherein it was held that the reason is the heart beat of every conclusion and without the same it becomes lifeless. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent herein contained in No.B1/1665/2008, dated 24.06.2008 as confirmed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings No.L/2816/2008, dated 28.06.2013 as illegal arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to quash the same.

4. The main contentions put-forth by learned counsel for the petitioner are as follows :

a) The provisions of Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act, 1977’) against the petitioner is totally unwarranted.

b) The explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 24.06.2008 of the 2nd respondent which clearly explained how the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked against the petitioner was not at all considered.

c) The subject land was not at all assigned land and it was patta land of one Devunoori Narsaiah right from 1957 i.e much prior to the commencement of Act 9 of 1977.

d) The 2nd respondent issued the proceedings on 24.06.2008 mechanically without conducting proper enquiry and without assigning valid reasons and without explaining how the grounds raised by the petitioner in his explanation d