Bathula Srinivasa Rao vs The State Of Ap
2024 Latest Caselaw 9331 AP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 9331 AP
Judgement Date : 15 October, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Bathula Srinivasa Rao vs The State Of Ap on 15 October, 2024

APHC010431422024
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI                   [3328]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

               TUESDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
                  TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                              PRESENT

   THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
                         PRASAD

                     WRIT PETITION NO: 22461/2024

Between:

  1. BATHULA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45
     YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3-157, YELLAMILLI VILLAGE GANDEPALLI
     MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

                                                        ...PETITIONER

                                 AND

  1. THE STATE OF AP, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
     VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS
     PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

  2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

  3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PEDDAPURAM REVENUE
     DIVISION, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

  4. THE TAHSILDAR, GANDEPALLI MANDAL,               EAST GODAVARI
     DISTRICT.

                                                    ...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

  1. C SUBODH

Counsel for the Respondent(S):
                                         2



     1. GP FOR REVENUE

The Court made the following:

ORAL ORDER:

Heard Sri C.Subodh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Arjun

Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Writ Petitioner has

purchased the land by way of a Registered Sale Deed by one Sri Srinivas Rao

dated 31.10.2019 bearing Document No.4728/2019 (Ex.P2). He would submit

that Writ Petitioner has received Form-I and Form-II Notices with regard to

agricultural land of an extent of Ac.1.01 cents in Sy.No.221/1 of Surampalem

Village, Gandepalli Mandal, Kakinada District.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has cited a judgment of this Court in

Renew Wind Energy (TN2) (P) Ltd., Delhi Vs. State of Telangana and Ors;

2020 (1) ALD 49 (TS). Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn the

attention of this Court to the Paragraph Nos.6 & 7 of the said judgment which

has discussed the contents which are required to be stated in Form-I and

Form-II Notices to be issued under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands

(Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. The relevant portion is usefully extracted

hereunder:

"6. Having regard to the law laid down by this Court in the above decision followed in WP No.13973 of 2017, dated 28.4.2017, what is required to be understood is that when show- cause notice in Form-I and Form-II is issued, it should also contain all the details as to whether the land is classified as

'Government land', and if so, when it was assigned, with what conditions it was assigned, what extent was assigned and to whom it was assigned and then call upon the assignee/occupier/purchaser to submit his explanation. In view of the settled principle of law, as these basic details are not furnished, the order impugned is not sustainable. As the order is ex facie not sustainable, the Court is not inclined to keep the writ petitions pending.

7. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed, at the stage of admission. The resumption proceedings dated 7.10.2019 are set aside and the matters are remanded to the Tahsildar, Addakal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. It is open to the Tahsildar to cause a fresh notice to the petitioner furnishing all the details required and basing on the details incorporated in the notice, call upon the petitioner to submit its explanation and consider the objections, if any, raised by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed."

4. On a reading of the above extract, this Court finds that the impugned

Form-I Notice is not in accordance with the tenor of the judgment rendered by

the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Telangana. It is a requirement of

the law that the Respondent authorities must adhere to all the procedures and

requirements of law as mentioned in the above paragraphs.

5. In this view of the matter, the impugned Notice issued by the

Respondent No.4 dated 08.08.2024 bearing Ref/B/176/2022 (Ex.P1) is set

aside. However, it is clarified that the Official Respondents are at liberty to

issue fresh Notices by adhering to the requirements as stated in the above

judgment.

6. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands

allowed. No order as to costs.