The failure of authorities to serve mandatory Form-II notices to a transferee/possessor in addition to Form-I notices served to the original assignee, as required under Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007, renders the resumption proceedings illegal for violating principles of natural justice.

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing Form-I notices dt.02-06-2018 in respect of petitioner schedule land in Sy.No.426-2, admeasuring 0-18 cents, Sy.No.426-7 admeasuring 0-87 cents and land in Sy.No.426-3 admeasuring 0-60 cents and 426-5 admeasuring 0-58 cents situated in Vallur Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District without following the procedure contemplated under Rule 3 of A.P. Assign Land (Prohibition) Act, 2007 as highly illegal, arbitrary against all canons of fair play and natural justice and offends Articles 14, 21, 300A of the constitution of India and also contrary to procedure contemplated under A.P. Assign Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 and consequently set aside the same and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of Form-I notices dt.02-06-2018 including interference with possession of petitioner schedule land in Sy.No.426-2, admeasuring 0-18 cents, Sy.No.426-7 admeasuring 0-87 cents and land in Sy.No.426-3 admeasuring 0-60 cents and 426-5 admeasuring 0-58 cents situated in Vallur Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.SITA RAM CHAPARLA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP)

This Court made the following:

ORDER:

Whether the impugned Form-I notice, issued by the 4th respondent to the vendor, the original assignee, without serving the corresponding Form-II notice on the current possessor (subsequent purchaser), constitutes a gross violation of the mandatory procedure under Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007, thereby violates the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) and rendering the proceeding liable to be set aside?

2. Heard Sri Sitaram Chaparla, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. The petitioner is the owner and possessor of land measuring Ac.0.18 cents in Sy No. 426-2 and Ac.0.87 cents in Sy No. 426-7 of Vallur Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District. On 6 May 1975, the petitioner entered into an agreement of sale with the vendor, Smt. Paladugu Akkamma. Subsequently, the vendor sold Ac.0.18 cents to M. Padmavathamma, who, following mediation by the village elders, transferred the land back to the petitioner vide a registered sale deed (Document No. 1071/1977) on 26 March 1997. Additionally, Smt. Paladugu Akkamma registered the sale deed (Document No. 5320/1995) on 6 November 1995 in favour of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner has been in continuous possession of the property for over 20 years as at the date of the impugned notice dated 2-6-2018. The Form-I notice was issued to the petitioner‘s vendor under Rule 3 of the Rules, 2007. The petitioner‘s counsel submits that, prior to taking action under Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act, 1977, the District Collector or the authorised officer is required to issue notices in both Form I and Form II to the transferor and transferee. In the present case, only Form-I notice was issued; no Form-II notice was issued. Ther