J JAYALALITHA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s.Natya Kala Niketan, a partnership firm, at 8/1 Siva Gnanam Road, T.Nagar, Madras - 17, had purchased an extent of Ac.3.20 gts in survey No.93/voo and an extent of Acs.1.15 gts in survey No.93/ru situated at Pet Basheerabad village of Medchal Mandal in Ranga Reddy District under a registered sale deed dated 07-6-1968 from M/s.Cherukuru Suryanarayana Raju, Radha Krishna Raju, Venkata Vijaya Rama Raju and Venkata Ravi Prasada Raju. Under the same sale deed, the said firm purchased another extent of Acs.4.00 in survey No.52/A situated at Jeedimetla village. The said firm also purchased an extent of Acs.3.15 gts in survey No.93/ee situated at Pet Basheerabad village under registered sale deed from M/s.Kummari Durgaiah and Kummari Balaiah. Be it noted that the petitioner and her mother were the two partners of M/s.Natya Kala Niketan. After expiry of her mother on 02-11-1971, by necessary mutation proceedings, petitioner was recorded in the revenue accounts as owner. Petitioner alleges that before the sale was effected in favour of the firm, permission under Sections 47 and 48 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (the Tenancy Act, for short) was obtained from the then Tahsildar, Medchal, and that after coming into force the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act, for short), the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No. 974, dated 22-9-1992, exempting these lands from the purview of ULC Act.

(2.) Third respondent herein, namely, Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue officer issued notice in Form-l under Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 1977 (the Rules, for short). The petitioner was asked to show cause as to why she should not be summarily evicted from the land as she is "found to have the assigned lands in contravention of the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977' (the Act, for brevity). The said notice bearing No.A/477/2007, dated 24-1-2007 reads as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_450_ALT4_2007Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) After receiving the notice, the petitioner got issued an interim reply dated 05-2-2007 through her advocate raising objections as to tenability of above notice and also denying the allegation that the petitioner is found to have assigned land. Expressing inability either to give effective reply or to effectively participate in the enquiry, the petitioner sought necessary assignment particulars including copy of assignment order. In response thereto, the third respondent issued a communication to the petitioner described as notice. The said reply/ notice of the third respondent dated 22-2-2007 purportedly gave the summary of the transactions in respect of the assigned lands in survey No.93 and also informed that as per Sethwar (original settlement record), Sesala pahani for 1955-1958 and Faisal Patti for 1977, the land is assigned land. The enquiry was posted on 06-3-2007 at 11.00 am.