(Prayer: 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 a Writ, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent through proceedings Roc.No. A/378/2023, Dt.26-12-2023 passed resumption order as per Section 4 1 c of AP Assigned Land Prohibition of Transfer Act, 1977 without considering the petitioners explanation Dt.22-12-2023 as arbitrary, illegal against Articles 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the 3rd Respondent proceedings vide Roc.No. A/378/2023, Dt.26-12-2023 and by directing the respondents not to change the village accounts as per the above order Dt.26-12-2023 and to pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case.)

1. The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

                  "….to issue a Writ, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent through proceedings Roc.No.A/378/2023, Dt.26.12.2023 passed resumption order as per Section 4(1)(c) of AP Assigned Land Prohibition of Transfer Act, 1977 without considering the petitioners explanation Dt.22.12.2023 as arbitrary, illegal against Articles 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the 3rd Respondent proceedings vide Roc.No.A/378/2023, Dt.26.12.2023 and by directing the respondents not to change the village accounts as per the above order Dt.26.12.2023 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case and pass such other orders……"

2. The affidavit states that the petitioner’s husband was granted DKT patta under Patta No.353/4/1401 on 08.02.1992, for an extent of 0.85 acres in Sy.No.21/3C, located in Chintalapalem village, Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District. It also mentions that the petitioner’s husband has been in possession and enjoyment of the land prior to the DKT patta being granted, and this possession has been recognized. The Tahsildar issued a pattadar passbook in the name of the petitioner’s husband, and the land has been continuously cultivated by the petitioner without any interruption.

3. While so, the 4th respondent filed W.P.(PIL)No.184 of 2023 challenging the inaction of the State and its authorities in safeguarding lands of various classifications. This PIL was disposed of on 22.11.2023, following a representation by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, which stated that actions against the petitioner had already been initiated. Consequently, the PIL was disposed of. Based on the orders of this Court in W.P.(PIL)No.184 of 2023, the 3rd respondent, the Tahsildar, issued a notice under the provisions of A.P. Land Transfer (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, calling for an explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 22.12.2023, but the impugned proceedings were delivered without consideration of her explanation.

4. Through the proceedings in Roc.No.A/378/2023, dated 26.12.2023, the 3rd respondent has resumed the land assigned to the petitioner duly cancelling the DKT patta No.353/4/1401 assigned in favour of the petitioner’s husband and the said proceedings dated 26.12.2023 in Roc.No.A/378/2023, has been challenged in the present Writ Petition on two grounds. The first is that the explanation provided by the petitioner on 22.12.2023, has not been given due consideration. If it had been considered correctly, the Tahsildar would have reached an appropriate conclusion. The second is that, even if there is a violation of the patta conditions, concerning any assigned land, the Tahsildar, under Section 3 of the Act, has the authority to restore the assigned land to the original assignee or their legal heir. If restoring the land to such an assignee or heir is not feasible, the land may instead be resumed by the government or allotted to landless poor for the time being in force.

5. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent contends that the petitioner has sold the assigned land to three individuals: (1) C. Ramaiah, (2) C. Muniratnam, and (3) K. Ramaiah, who have built houses on part of the Survey Number assigned to the petitioner. The counsel has drawn the attention of this court to the photographs filed that depicts the constructions, and stated that, due to the alienation of the DKT patta land granted to the petitioner's husband, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Therefore, it’s pleaded to dismiss the Writ Petition.

6. A Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Uppu Padaiah Vs. The Madal Revenue Officer, Sydapudi, Nellore District and another reported in 1992(1) HC 434, referring to Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, held that:

                  "If in any case, the District Collector or any other officer not below the rank of a Tahsildar, authorized by him in this behalf, is satisfied that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 3, have been contravened in respect of any assigned land, he may, by order – (a) take possession of the assigned land, after evicting the person is possession I such manner as may be prescribed; and (b)restore the assigned land to the original assignee or his legal heir, or where it is not reasonably practicable to restore the land to such assignee or legal heir, resume the assigned land to Government for assignment of landless poor persons in accordance with the rules for the time being in force."

7. The present impugned order came to be passed without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the notice issued under A.P. Land Transfer (Prohibition of Transfer) Act 1977. The Tahsildar has extracted the explanation offered by the petitioner in the impugned order, but has not addressed it. It is the duty cast upon the Tahsildar to record atleast whether such objections made by the petitioner prima facie are sustainable under law.

8. The unofficial 4th respondent is not an aggrieved party, although he has been impleaded as a party respondent in this Writ Petition. It is acknowledged that the property was assigned to the petitioner’s husband, who has not encroached upon the property in question under the A.P.Land Encroachment Act of 1908, thereby arguing that the government has not adequately protected the property.

9. Therefore, keeping in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court referred supra and as non-consideration of the explanation is in violation of the principles of natural justice, hence this Court is inclined to dispose of the present Writ Petition in the following:

10. The present Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to examine the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 22.12.2023 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and communicate the decision to the petitioner. Till the decision is taken, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner’s property. There shall be no order as to costs.

                  As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.