IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.24660 of 2014 BETWEEN Smt. P. Sujatha.
AND ... PETITIONER State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. V.S.R. ANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard Mr. V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.
2. Petitioner claims that she was assigned an extent of Ac.0.30 cents of land in Sy.No.395/1B/2D, an extent of Ac.0.25 cents and an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.3096/13 of Borrampalem village, T-Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. Petitioner claims that she was granted pattadar pass books through Patta No.860 and her name was mutated in 1B Register and connected revenue records including Adangals and Pahanies. Petitioner states that she was, however, served with a notice dated 12.08.2014 under Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Rules, 2007 (for short ‘the Rules’) alleging that the petitioner is a purchaser from an assignee and as such, holding the land in Sy.No.396/13 in an extent of Ac.0.62 cents in violation of the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’).
Petitioner submits that she filed an explanation to the said notice on 18.08.2014 and apprehending that an order of eviction would be passed by the Tahsildar, the present writ petition is filed, allegedly, on the basis of the observations made by the Tahsildar that he would direct eviction of the petitioner.
3. I see no reason to accept the averments of the petitioner that the Tahsildar would evict the petitioner eventually by disregarding the objections/explanation filed by the petitioner. It is evident that the Tahsildar himself has given a notice calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation and as such, there is no reason to presume that the Tahsildar would not consider the explanation filed by the petitioner.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner alternatively submits that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is too cryptic and petitioner be granted an opportunity to supplement the said explanation. I see no reason to reject the said alternate request.
The writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
1. Petitioner is permitted to file additional explanation also to the notice issued by the Tahsildar substantiating her case against the show cause notice issued to her.
2. The Tahsildar is directed to consider the petitioner’s explanation as well as additional explanation and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
3. Petitioner is granted time till 08.09.2014 to file additional explanation and till the same is appropriately considered, as directed above, the Tahsildar shall not pas any orders in pursuance of the impugned notice.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 26, 2014 DSK