Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Kota Venkata Ramana on 5 August, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
1
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.Nos.437, 438 & 439/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
***
+W.A.Nos.437, 438 & 439 of 2024
Between:
# 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati.
2. The District Collector, Vizianagaram District.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Bhogapuram International Greenfield
Airport, Bhogapuram, Vizianagaram District.
4. The Tahsildar, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
... Appellants
AND
$ 1. Kota Venkata Ramana, S/o. Late Suryanarayana, R/o. Ravada
Village, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
2. Kota Lakshmi W/o. Late Suryanarayana, R/o. Ravada Village,
Bhogapuram Mandal, Viziasnagaram District.
... Respondents
Between:
# 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati.
2. The District Collector, Vizianagaram District.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram
District.
4. The Tahsildar, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
5. The Special Deputy Collector cum Land Acquisition Officer,
International Greenfield Airport, Bhogapuram, Vizianagaram District
... Appellants
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.Nos.437, 438 & 439/2024
AND
$ 1. Seera Ramudu died, S/o. Appayya, R/o. Jammayapeta Village,
Bhogapuram Mandal Vizianagaram District.
2. Seera Appalaraju, S/o. Late Ramaswamy R/o. SC BC Colony
Bhogapuram Village, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
3. Seera Ramulamma W/o. Late Seera Ramudu, D/o. Koradappayya,
R/o. Jammayapeta village, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram
District.
4. Seera Gowri, Daughter in law of Seera Ramudu, W/o. Seera Ramu,
R/o. Jammayapeta Village, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram
District.
5. Seera Narasimhu S/o. Late Seera Ramudu, R/o. Jammayapeta
Village, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
... Respondents
Between:
# 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati.
2. The District Collector, Vizianagaram District.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Bhogapuram International Greenfield
Airport, Bhogapuram, Vizianagaram District.
4. The Tahsildar, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
... Appellants
AND
$ 1. Kota Venkata Ramana, S/o. Late Suryanarayana, R/o. Ravada
Village, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
2. Kota Lakshmi W/o. Late Suryanarayana, R/o. Ravada Village,
Bhogapuram Mandal, Viziasnagaram District.
... Respondents
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.Nos.437, 438 & 439/2024
Date of Judgment pronounced on : 05.08.2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
And
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No
May be allowed to see the judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No
to Law Reporters/Journals:
3. Whether The Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No
Of the Judgment?
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.Nos.437, 438 & 439/2024
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
And
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
+ W.A.Nos.437, 438 & 439 of 2024
% Dated: 05.08.2024
Between:
# 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati.
2. The District Collector, Vizianagaram District.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Bhogapuram International Greenfield
Airport, Bhogapuram, Vizianagaram District.
4. The Tahsildar, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
... Appellants
AND
$ 1. Kota Venkata Ramana, S/o. Late Suryanarayana, R/o. Ravada
Village, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
2. Kota Lakshmi W/o. Late Suryanarayana, R/o. Ravada Village,
Bhogapuram Mandal, Viziasnagaram District.
... Respondents
Between:
# 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati.
2. The District Collector, Vizianagaram District.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram
District.
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.Nos.437, 438 & 439/2024
4. The Tahsildar, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
5. The Special Deputy Collector cum Land Acquisition Officer,
International Greenfield Airport, Bhogapuram, Vizianagaram District
... Appellants
AND
$ 1. Seera Ramudu died, S/o. Appayya, R/o. Jammayapeta Village,
Bhogapuram Mandal Vizianagaram District.
2. Seera Appalaraju, S/o. Late Ramaswamy R/o. SC BC Colony
Bhogapuram Village, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
3. Seera Ramulamma W/o. Late Seera Ramudu, D/o. Koradappayya,
R/o. Jammayapeta village, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram
District.
4. Seera Gowri, Daughter in law of Seera Ramudu, W/o. Seera Ramu,
R/o. Jammayapeta Village, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram
District.
5. Seera Narasimhu S/o. Late Seera Ramudu, R/o. Jammayapeta
Village, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
... Respondents
Between:
# 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati.
2. The District Collector, Vizianagaram District.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Bhogapuram International Greenfield
Airport, Bhogapuram, Vizianagaram District.
4. The Tahsildar, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
... Appellants
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.Nos.437, 438 & 439/2024
AND
$ 1. Kota Venkata Ramana, S/o. Late Suryanarayana, R/o. Ravada
Village, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
2. Kota Lakshmi W/o. Late Suryanarayana, R/o. Ravada Village,
Bhogapuram Mandal, Viziasnagaram District.
... Respondents
! Counsel for the Appellants : Additional Advocate General
^Counsel for Respondents : Sri P. Rama Krishna
<GIST :
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred:
1. 2004 (2) ALD 451
2. 2017 (2) ALD 529
3. (2014) 3 SCC 502
4. 2020 (1) ALT 245
5. 2010 (6) ALD 536
6. 2000 (1) ALD 168
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.Nos.437, 438 & 439/2024
APHC010196562024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL NOS: 437/2024
Between:
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
Kota Venkata Ramana and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
WRIT APPEAL NO: 438/2024
Between:
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
Seera Ramudu and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
WRIT APPEAL NO: 439/2024
Between:
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
Kota Venkata Ramana and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the appellants : Additional Advocate General
Counsel for the respondents : Sri P. Rama Krishna
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.Nos.437, 438 & 439/2024
The Court made the following Common Judgment:
(Per Hon‟ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
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‟).
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.Nos.437, 438 & 439/2024
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 Pandu1.
8. Aggrieved by the said common order, dated 13.12.2023, these
writ appeals have been filed.
2004 (2) ALD 451
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.Nos.437, 438 & 439/2024
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.,2; Dipak Babaria & Anr.,
vs. State of Gujarat3; Renew Wind Energy (TN2) Private Limited vs. State
of Telangana 4 ; and Dasari Narayana Rao vs. Deputy Collector and
Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampalli 5 . 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.,6 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 served on
the assignee as well as the purchasers. He has taken this Court through the
2017 (2) ALD 529
(2014) 3 SCC 502
2020 (1) ALT 245
2010 (6) ALD 536
2000 (1) ALD 168
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.Nos.437, 438 & 439/2024
Rules and the Forms to demonstrate that there is no requirement either under
the Rules or under the Forms, requiring the authority to issue both the Forms.
11. The Additional Advocate General would also contend that the
contention of the contesting respondents, that the notices issued to the
contesting respondents did not contain necessary information and the same
vitiate the resumption process, is not correct. He would submit that the
reliance on the judgments reported in Renew Wind Energy (TN2) Private
Limited vs. State of Telangana and Dasari Narayana Rao vs. Deputy
Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampalli, is misplaced.
12. The learned Additional Advocate General would also contend that
the delay, if any, in resuming the land would not vitiate the resumption in as
much as there has been a violation of the non-alienation clause and
consequently the consequence of resumption of the land cannot be disputed.
13. Sri Ramakrishna Pativada, learned counsel appearing for the
contesting respondents would submit that, the concerned transaction of sale
took place in the year 1981, after which, the Government itself had issued
pattadar passbooks and title deeds and had also mutated the names of the
purchasers into the revenue records. Having permitted the purchasers to
continue in possession and after recognizing the purchasers as owners of the
land for a period of 45 years, the authorities under the Act cannot resume the
lands.
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.Nos.437, 438 & 439/2024
14. He would further submit that similarly situated persons whose
lands were sought to be resumed, had approached this Court and memos
were filed on behalf of the State, in the writ petitions, filed by those persons,
stating that compensation would be paid to all those persons. He submits that
having accepted that compensation is payable to similarly situated persons, it
would not be open to the Government to file appeals only against these
contesting respondents.
15. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents would also
contend that the judgments of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh
reported in M/s. Sudalagunta Sugars Limited vs. The Joint Collector,
Chittoor & Anr and the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.1312 of 2020 clearly
mandate that both Form-I and Form-II notices have to be served, on the
transferor and transferee, if assigned land is sought to be resumed because
the condition of non-alienation had been contravened. Non-service of both
notices would vitiate the entire process. He would also submit that the non-
inclusion of details in the Forms i.e., the extent of land that is said to have
been assigned, the details of the alienation of such assigned lands and the
details of the person on whom the land has been assigned, places the notices
at a disadvantage as they cannot answer a case which is not informed to
them. Such non-disclosure would amount to violation of principles of natural
justice.
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.Nos.437, 438 & 439/2024
16. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents would also
challenge the resumption on merits stating that there has been gross violation
of the procedure, including the fact that no panchanama has been conducted
when the land is officially said to have been taken possession and the report
on the basis of which resumption had been initiated had not been furnished to
the contesting respondents.
Consideration of the Court:
17. The admitted case on both sides is that Form-I notices have been
issued to the original assignees and no Form-II notice had been issued to
them. Similarly, Form-II notices were issued to the purchasers and persons
claiming through them and no Form-I notice had been issued to them.
18. The question of whether such non-service of Forms would vitiate the
resumption process was answered in the affirmative by a learned Single
Judge, of the erstwhile High Court of A.P., in Dasari Narayana Rao v.
Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, M/s. Sudalagunta Sugars
Limited vs. The Joint Collector, Chittoor & Anr., and by another Single
Judge, in the case of Renew Wind Energy (TN2) Private Limited vs. State
of Telangana.
19. The violation of the conditions of assignment, that is said to have
resulted in the resumption of the land, is the alienation of the land in the year
1981 by way of registered deeds of sale. It is also an admitted fact that the
purchasers had purchased these properties under registered deeds of sale
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.Nos.437, 438 & 439/2024
and had also obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds, apart from that
their names were entered into the revenue records, in relation to these lands.
20. A learned single judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, in Dasari Narayana Rao v. Deputy Collector and Mandal
Revenue Officer, had laid down certain mandatory guidelines, which are as
follows:
16. In Vatticherukuri Village Panchayat v. Nori V.
Deekshithulu, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 228, the Supreme Court
explained the principle:
"23. The jurisdiction of a tribunal created under statute may
depend upon the fulfilment of some condition precedent or upon
existence of some particular fact. Such a fact is collateral to the
actual matter which the tribunal has to try and the determination
whether it existed or not is logically temporary prior to the
determination of the actual question which the tribunal has to
consider. At the inception of an enquiry by a tribunal of limited
jurisdiction, when a challenge is made to its jurisdiction, the
tribunal has to consider as the collateral fact whether it would
act or not and for that purpose to arrive at some decision as to
whether it has jurisdiction or not. There may be tribunal which
by virtue of the law constituting it has the power to determine
finally, even the preliminary facts on which the further exercise
of its jurisdiction depends; but subject to that, the tribunal
cannot by a wrong decision with regard to collateral fact, give
itself a jurisdiction which it would not otherwise have had".
17. Much earlier, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
in T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440, while
dealing with the scope of a writ of certiorari approved the
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.Nos.437, 438 & 439/2024
principle evolved in Bunbury v. Fuller, (1853) 9 EX. 111;
and R v. Income Tax Special Purposes Commissioners, (1888)
22 QBD 313, and held that when the jurisdiction of the Court
depends upon the existence of some collateral fact, the Court
cannot by a wrong decision of the fact give itself jurisdiction
which it would not otherwise possess.
18. In the light of the above principles as to the jurisdictional
limits of a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction, it is clear that a correct
conclusion as to the land in the possession of the petitioners
being "assigned land" (as this expression is defined in Section
2(1) of the 1977 Act); and the such conclusion arrived at on the
basis of the evidence on record; such evidence having been
recorded after due opportunity to the aggrieved petitioners, is a
condition precedent to the exercise of power under Section 4(1)
of the Act.
23. In the considered view of this Court the show-cause
notice dated 16.2.2002 is itself invalid. The minimum
requirement of a show-cause notice, in the context of an action
initiated under the provisions of the 1977 Act is (a) it should
assert that there was an assignment of land either under the
provisions of the 1977 Act or under any Rules for the time being
in force subject to a condition of non-alienation; that such
"assigned land" was transferred by such assignee in
contravention of the prohibition of alienation clause contained in
the deed of assignment; (b) it should assert that the
respondents to the show-cause notice had entered upon
possession of "assigned land" under a deed of transfer which is
invalid under the provisions of Section 3 of the 1977 Act. The
show-cause notice must of necessity contain such factual
assertions to enable the recipient (of the notice) to rationally
respond and submit his objections, if any, to the proceedings
initiated against him under the provisions of the 1977 Act.
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.Nos.437, 438 & 439/2024
Issuance of a show-cause notice is not an empty ritual. It should
provide a reasonable and fair opportunity to the recipient of the
show-cause notice to defend his title and possession of, the
valuable right to property.
21. This Judgment was followed in M/s. Sudalagunta Sugars
Limited vs. The Joint Collector, Chittoor & Anr.,; B. Adinarayana Murthy
vs. Collector Ananthapur District and Anr,; and Renew Wind Energy
(TN2) Private Limited vs. State of Telangana. The ratio in these judgments
can be summarized as follows:
a) The proceedings under the Act, are civil proceedings undertaken
by a Tribunal. Any Tribunal, before exercise of jurisdiction, would have to
assert the jurisdictional facts. This would require the authority, exercising
jurisdiction under Section 4 of the Act, to state that the land, which is the
subject matter of the proceedings under the Act, is land which had been
assigned to the assignee with a clear condition of non-alienation, to bring the
said land within the definition of "Assigned Land" set out in Section 2(1) of the
Act.
b) Any proceeding, without such jurisdictional facts being settled and
set out in the proceedings, would render such proceedings invalid.
c) Where the assigned land is sought to be resumed, on the ground
of violation of the condition of non-alienation, both the transferor and the
transferee would have to be given notice under Form-I and Form-II. Any order
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.Nos.437, 438 & 439/2024
passed without serving both the forms to both transferor and transferee would
vitiate the entire process.
d) The notices served on the transferor and transferee should
contain relevant details such as the details of the assignment proceedings; the
presence of the condition of non-alienation in the assignment document; the
details of alienation done by the assignee in favour of a third party, etc. Non
furnishing of such information would invalidate any order of resumption.
22. We are in agreement with the aforesaid mandatory guidelines.
23. In the present case, the challenge to the impugned proceedings
arose on account of the authority, acting under Section 4 of the Act, serving
only Form-I on the transferor and only Form-II on the transferee.
24. The procedure for taking steps under Section 4 is set out in Rule
3 of the Rules. Rule 3 of the Rules is set out below:
Rule 3.-- Procedure for eviction of the transferee and taking
possession and restoration of assigned lands:- The District
Collector or the Authorised Officer shall, before taking action under
clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, issue
notices in Form No.1 and Form II to the persons who have
transferred and also to the persons who have acquired any assigned
land in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3
of the Act. The notices shall be served by delivering a copy on
transferor and transferee or some adult male member of the family of
such transferor or transferee at their usual place of abode or to their
authorised agent or by affixing a copy thereof at some conspicuous
place of their last known place of residence or on some conspicuous
part of the assigned land. After the expiry of (fifteen) 15 days
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.Nos.437, 438 & 439/2024
specified in the notice, the District Collector or the Authorised Officer
shall consider the representation, if any, received with reference to
the said notice and pass such orders as he thinks fit and proper. If it
is held that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of
the Act, have been contravened in respect of any assigned land, a
copy of the order shall be communicated to the Village Officer
concerned under whose territorial jurisdiction the land is situated for
taking possession of the land and thereupon the land shall be
disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.
25. Form-I mentioned in Rule 3 of the Rules is a notice, which on the
face of the notice, is to be sent to the transferor / assignee, stating that he had
alienated "assigned land" assigned to him, in contravention of the provisions
of Section 3(2) of the Act, and that the land is liable to be resumed under
Section 4 of the Act for violation of Section 3 of the Act.
26. Similarly, Form-II, on the face of it, appears to be a Form which
has to be served on the transferee, calling upon the transferee to show cause,
as to why he should not be summarily evicted from the said assigned land
etc., as he is found to be in possession of the assigned lands, in contravention
of the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Act.
27. The schedules attached to both these Forms have certain
differences. Column 4 in the schedule attached to Form-I sets out details and
date of patta certificate, column 5 sets out the name of the transferee and
column 6 sets out the nature of transfer and date. In Form-II, column 4 sets
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.Nos.437, 438 & 439/2024
out the description of the land of the assignee, column 5 sets out the name of
the transferor and date of transfer and column 6 set out the nature of transfer.
28. The learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the
contents of Form-I make it amply clear that the said form is to be issued to the
assignee and the language in the said form requires the assignee to answer
the grounds raised in the notice in Form-I. The learned Additional Advocate
General would also contend that the contents of Form-II make it clear that this
is a notice being sent to the transferee. He would contend that the language of
Rule 3 of the Rules should be understood in the context of the contents of
Form-I and Form-II. He would submit that any other interpretation of these
Rules would not be in consonance with the contents of Form-I or Form-II of
the Rules.
29. Learned Additional Advocate General would contend that in view
of the contents of Form-I and Form-II, the ratio laid down in the above
judgments, that both Forms should be served on both transferor and
transferee does not appear to be correct if the contents of, Form-I and Form-II
are properly understood.
30. At first Blush the said argument is attractive. However, the Rule
and the Forms would have to be understood in the context in which they are
invoked.
31. The requirement of service of notices of Form I and Form II,
under Rule 3 reads as follows:
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.Nos.437, 438 & 439/2024
3. Procedure for eviction of the transferee and taking possession
and resporation of assigned lands:- The District Collector or the
Authorised Officer shall, before taking action under clauses (a) and
(b) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, issue notices in Form
No.1 and Form II to the persons who have transferred and also to the
persons who have acquired any assigned land in contravention of the
provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. The notices shall
be served by delivering a copy on transferor and transferee or some
adult male member of the family of such transferor or transferee at
their usual place of abode....
32. The language is unambiguous and clear. Both forms have to be
served on both the assignee and the transferee. Any other interpretation
would twist the language to something which does not appear to be intended.
It also appears that the language, used in Rule 3, was not accidental or
inartistic, but put in place for cogent reasons. For this purpose, a look at the
scheme of the Act and the Rules is necessary.
33. "Assigned land", is defined under the Act to mean, land which is
assigned to landless poor persons, subject to the condition of non-alienation.
Section 3 mandates that the assigned land cannot be transferred to any
person and can only be inherited by the legal heirs of the assignee. Any
transfer, made in contravention of Section 3, would be deemed to be null and
void. Apart from that, the authority described in Section 4, after giving him a
written notice and after giving him an opportunity of hearing, is entitled to take
back possession of the assigned land, after evicting the person in possession.
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.Nos.437, 438 & 439/2024
34. The aforesaid procedure would mean that both the assignee and
the transferee have to be given notice and both of them would have to be
heard and both of them have to be given opportunity of hearing before a
decision is taken in the matter. This would mean that the authority would have
to take a decision only after hearing both the assignee and the transferee. The
decision of the authority, under Section 4, would have to be the same in
relation to the assignee as well as the transferee. There cannot be a situation
where the explanation of the assignee is accepted that there was no transfer
while the explanation of the transferee that there was no transfer is rejected.
35. This would mean that a common hearing or common proceedings
would have to be initiated against both assignee and the transferee. In such a
situation both the assignee and the transferee would have to be apprised of
the case against both of them. Though, the assignee would have to primarily
respond to the notice given in Form-I, he would also have to be served with
Form-II so that the assignee knows what the case is against the transferee.
Similarly, though the transferee essentially would answer the case against him
sent under Form-II he is entitled to know what the case against the assignee
is. In some cases, the assignee may be apathetic, after alienating the land
and the burden of defending his possession of the land may be on the
transferee. In such circumstances, the service of notice in Form I, on the
transferee, is necessary. The converse situation may also arise requiring the
assignee to defend the case of the transferee also. Failure to serve such
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.Nos.437, 438 & 439/2024
notices would leave the assignee and the transferee with inadequate
information, which would amount to violation of principles of natural justice.
36. For these reasons, the language in Rule 3 should be understood
to mean that both forms have to be served on both the assignee and the
transferee. Any failure to do so, would vitiate the entire proceedings. For these
reasons, we are in respectful agreement with the views expressed in the
judgments cited above.
37. In the present case, it is the admitted case on both sides, that
both Forms were not served on the assignee or the transferee. Accordingly,
there is no error in the order of the learned Single Judge, which requires any
intervention by this Court.
38. In the normal course, this Court after giving a finding on violation
of principles of natural justice, normally remands the matter back to the
primary authority. However, the learned Single Judge had held that it would
not be appropriate to do so because similarly situated persons, against whom
similar resumption proceedings had been initiated, have been given the
benefit of payment of compensation, while the contesting respondents are
being denied this benefit. Also, the timing of the resumption proceedings
indicates that the resumption proceedings were initiated only after the land
was needed for establishing the airport. The effort appears to be more in the
nature of resuming the land by depriving the petitioners from the benefits of
payment of compensation.
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.Nos.437, 438 & 439/2024
39. Accordingly, these writ appeals are dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
_______________
HARINATH.N, J
Js.
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.Nos.437, 438 & 439/2024
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
And
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
W.A.Nos.437, 438 & 439 of 2024
5th August, 2024
Js.
