IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.37176 of 2014 BETWEEN Gangavaram Sunil Kumar AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner questions the notice given to him under Rule 3 of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Rules, 2007, dated 02.08.2014. Petitioner states that the very basis of the said notice that petitioner has purchased an assigned land, is not correct. It is stated that the assignee was an ex-Indian Army serving personnel and after the requisite lapse of period, he has sold the land to the petitioner and that the sale was preceeded by no objection certificate issued in favour of vendor of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner’s title does not any way be affected nor there is any violation of Rule 3, as alleged.
3. However, it is evident that the said notice, dated 02.08.2014 was replied to by the petitioner by filing a detailed reply dated 12.08.2014. He has also placed reliance upon the policy of the Government relating to assigned lands and permissible alienability thereof, after the 10 years period. It is stated that no orders have been passed by respondent No.4 in pursuance of the said notice, but however there is a constant interference with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment by the sub-ordinates of respondent No.4. The present writ petition is, therefore, filed questioning the notice and seeking that respondent No.4 shall not interfere.
4. Since the notice under statutory Rules has been given to the petitioner and since he has already filed his reply, in my view, it is not necessary to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court to interdict the said notice as it cannot be said that the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction even to issue a notice if he suspects any violation of the Act. Said notice is issued almost four months back, to which petitioner has already given a reply also and respondent No.4 has already ceased of the matter.
5. Hence, it would be just and appropriate to direct respondent No.4 to consider petitioner’s reply and pass appropriate orders in pursuance of the said notice. However, till then, respondent No.4 or his sub ordinates shall not interfere with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the property.
With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 4, 2014 LMV