Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
R. Vijaya Raghava Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 16 March, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.6135 of 2020
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"to pass an order or writ or direction, more preferably one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring resumption orders passed by the Respondent No.3 RDO on 02.01.2008 even without notice to the predecessors the Petitioner vide proceedings R.c.No.51/2007/D for proposed SEZ by APIIC in respect of the Petitioner's on the property in Sy.No.27-2A to an extent of Ac.9.40 cents and Sy.No.27-2B to an extent of 5.88 cents which is admeasuring a total of Ac.15.28 cents of Gollapuram village of Hindupur Mandal in the SRO of Hindupur, Anantapur District, A.P. without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and which is violation of Petitioner's rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to exemption of non-alienability clause to the assigned lands purchased prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1142, Revenue Dt.18.06.1954 with reference to the Judgement of this court reported 2009 (4) ALT1 (DB) in respect of Section 3(1) of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and to consequently set aside the proceedings in R.c.No.51/2007/D for proposed SEZ by APIIC dt.02.01.2008."
The third respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer passed the resumption order under Section 4 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977 (for short 'Act'). Statutory appeal is available under Section 4-A of the Act. But, without filing a statutory appeal permissible under the Act, the petitioner approached this Court, which is impermissible, in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in "Genpact India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another1". On this ground alone, writ petition cannot be maintained. However, the petitioner is permitted to prefer an appeal under Section 4-A of the Act. In view of the law declared by this Court in "Rahmatullah Khan and 1 (2019) 108 Taxman 340 (Delhi) MSM,J Wp_6135_2020 2 Others vs. Government of A.P. and Others2", the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner in pursuance of the resumption order, till expiry of the appeal time.
With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 16.03.2020 Ksp 2 2014 (2) ALD 272