ORDER:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT W.P.No.23463 OF 2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Government Pleader and Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu.
With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
The issue arises under the Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. The subject matter of the writ petition is an extent of Ac.0-90 cents in Sy.No.195 B1B of Gunapadu Village, Chittamur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
The petitioner assails the orders in case No.D.Dis (E8)/5000/2008 dated 15.09.2009 of 1st respondent, D.Dis.B1.1376/2008 dated 18.08.2008 of 2nd respondent and order No.Rc.10A/2008 dated 15.02.2008 of 3rd respondent, as illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the mandatory provision under Rule 3 of the Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Rules (for short ‘the Rules’).
The facts are not in dispute between the parties.
The primary grievance of petitioner is that the 3rd respondent purporting to exercise the power under Section 3 of the Act passed the order dated 15.02.2008. The petitioner claims to be purchaser of assigned land. The 3rd respondent in terms of Rule 3 of the Rules is required to put on notice the assignee in possession of assigned land before passing the order of cancellation or resumption. It is further contended that in the order dated 15.02.2008, there is hardly any detail about the date of issuance notice, to whom it is issued and the date of receipt of notice by the addressee. A point is made by referring to a statement in the counter-affidavit that according to the stand of respondents, the notice is served on 01.05.2008, the order of the 3rd respondent is dated 15.02.2008 and consequently the order is passed without issuing notice under Rule 3 of the Rules.
The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that there appears to be a mistake in typing in stating service of notice and the date of service of notice on the assignee. Be that as it may, the burden is definitely on the respondents to prove that there is no deviation in following the procedure. On perusal of material available on record, it is evident that there is nothing on record to show that a notice was served on the petitioner in terms of Rule 3 of the Rules. In view of the undisputed position, in the view of this Court, there is breach of requirement under Rule 3 of the Rules and the principles of natural justice. The impugned proceedings are set aside and the matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent for fresh disposal, in accordance with law.
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
S.V. BHATT, J
26th November, 2014
Lrkm