Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Narisinga Seetha vs The State Of Ap on 17 October, 2024
APHC010551552022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3332]
THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 33721/2022
Between:
Narisinga Seetha ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. M P V N V SASTRY
2. GP FOR REVENUE
3. M P V N V SASTRI
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The short grievance of the petitioner is to declare the issuance of
impugned proceedings vide ROC.No.290/2022(A) dated 18.08.2022 passed
by the 4th respondent insisting her to vacate her land admeasuring Ac.2.91
cents comprising Ac.1.21 cents and Ac.1.70 cents respectively in
Sy.Nos.1454-1A and 1454-5A of Chintalapudi Revenue Village and Mandal,
Eluru District, as illegal, arbitrary, without any authority of law and in violation
of principles of the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of
Transferred Lands) Act, 1977.
2. Heard Smt Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader and Sri Eswar, learned
counsel representing Sri M.P.V.N.V Sastry, learned counsel for the unofficial
respondent Nos.8 to 11.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the
writ affidavit submitted that the impugned proceedings has been passed by
the Tahsildar by duly serving a notice on a dead person i.e., the petitioner‟s
son. Knowing about initiation of proceedings, being a father, petitioner‟s
husband appeared before the Tahsildar and gave a statement to the said
affect as well. Inspite of it, the Tahsildar has proceeded further and passed
resumption orders without following the procedure as envisaged under Andhra
Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and Rules, 2007
(for short „Act, 1977), wherein he has to issue Form-I & II notices both to the
assignee and transferee and on these two grounds the order impugned has to
be set aside. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the
interest of the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader on counter
contended that as against the orders passed by the Tahsidlar, the petitioner
has to prefer an appeal before the Revenue Dvisionsal Officer. Instead of filing
appeal, she straight away filed the present writ petition wherein this Court
cannot adjudicate under Article 226 of Constitution of India. He further
submitted that the Tahsildar has rightly passed the impugned order by
following the procedure envisaged under Act, 1977. There is no procedural
irregularity or impropriety, as such, the writ petition is devoid of merits and
liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5. Sri Eswar, learned counsel representing M.P.V.N.V Sastry, learned
counsel submitted that the Tahsildar has rightly passed orders impugned and
the same is sustainable. The petitioner has not raised any valid grounds
warranting the interference of this Court, as such, the Writ Petition is liable to
be dismissed. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel.
7. The case of the petitioner is that the Tahsildar, Chintalapudi Mandal,
has assigned land in favour of the petitioner‟s handicapped son by name
Sri Narsingi Ajay Babu in the year 2005 vide file No.135/LD/1414 (Assignment
patta in Form-I) wherein he mortgaged the said lands for crop loan and
thereby cultivated the same by raising casual plantations and got his name
mutated in the revenue records and accordingly pattadar passbook was also
issued by the revenue authorities. The said Ajay Babu died intestate about 3
years ago who is unmarried and the land has been succeeded by the
petitioner who is class-I heir under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act,
1956. While so, the respondent No.7 filed a petition before the Tahsildar for
resumption of the land in her favour on the ground that the said land has been
assigned to her father-in-law and she is being the legal heir. The said petition
has been adjudicated by the Tahsildar invoking the provisions of Section 9 of
Act, 1977, and passed the impugned order dated 18.08.2022 vide
Roc.No.290/2022 (A). A perusal of the order impugned would indicate that
Form-I notice has been issued in favour of the original assignee and Form-II
notice in favour of the petitioner‟s deceased son and the same were assailed
mainly on two grounds i.e., issuing notice on a dead person is non est and not
issuing Form-I and Form-II on both assignee and alleged transferee.
In support of her case, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the
judgment of this Court in the case of Alavala Veera Reddy v. State of
Andhra Pradesh & Ors1, wherein the relevant paragraph reads as follows:-
"On perusal of the order impugned in the writ petition, more
particularly, para Nos.3 and 4, notice in Form-I was issued to
assignees through Village Revenue Officer, by calling their
explanation and notice in Form-II was served on transferee of the
subject land shown in schedule appended in Form-I. Thus, notice in
Form-I and II is not in compliance of Rule 3 of Rules framed under
Act, 2007. According to Rule 3, notice in Form-I and II shall be
served on both transferee and transferor, if the assignee
contravened, the Government proposed to resume the land for
contravention of Section 3 of Act 9 of 1977. In the present facts of the
case, notice was served only on assignee in Form-I and on another
person in Form-II, who is not transferee. As per the sale deed,
petitioner is transferee of land from original assignee."
8. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that when
an alternative remedy of appeal is available, the petitioner cannot assail the
impugned proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution of India and the writ
petition has to be dismissed on the sole ground itself.
2021 (6) ALD 4AP
9. No doubt, High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of
Constitution of India if an effective alternative remedy is available to the
aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has
been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. But the
said principle is not an absolute except if a rule of alternative remedy arises
where there has been violation of principles of natural justice or when the
administrative authorities failed to strictly adhere to the procedure during
decision making process the writ court can exercise power of judicial review
under article 226 of constitution of India and pass appropriate orders. The
death certificate vide 50075-D-26075 would indicate that Narisingi Ajay Babu
died on 30.08.2016 whereas the Form-II was issued on 24.01.2022 to the said
dead person. Further no notices as required under law under Form-I & Form-II
on both assignee and transferee were issued. As such, the submission of the
learned Assistant Government Pleader is unsustainable and the Tahsildar has
failed to follow the procedure during decision making process while passing
the orders impugned. The petitioner has made out a case warranting the
interference of this Court. For the reasons stated supra, the order impugned is
unsustainable both on facts and on law and is liable to be set aside and the
matter has to be remanded back to the Tahsildar concerned for fresh
adjudication. As such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by
passing the following order:-
"The order impugned vide Roc.No.290/2022 (A) dated 18.08.2022 is
hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tahsildar concerned
for fresh adjudication. On such remand, the Tahsildar shall issue notices to all
the parties concerned as per the provisions of Act, 1977, by providing an
opportunity of personal hearing and pass fresh orders in accordance with law
and communicate the same to the petitioner."
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as
to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
Date: 17th October, 2024
RKS
