ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No. 1 in issuing the notice in Roc. No. 3129/2019/A, dated 24.12.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently to set aside the same. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the absolute owner of Ac. 0.71 cents in Sy. No. 801/2A of Relangi Village, West Godavari District. The petitioner acquired an extent of Ac. 0.21 cents by registered sale deed dated 30.07.1965 and an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents by another registered sale deed dated 03.02.1967. Thus, the petitioner became absolute owner by purchase under two different sale deeds for different extents. The land in Sy. No. 801/2 of Relangi Village is sub-divided as R.S. No. 801/2 and 2A. 3. On the application of the petitioner for permission to construct a poultry shed in the said land, the Relangi Gram Panchayat accorded permission vide proceedings dated 13.11.1988 in BLR No. 23. Thus, the petitioner is running a poultry farm for his livelihood till date. 4. While the matter stood thus, respondent No. 1 issued a notice in Roc. No. 3129/2019/A dated 24.12.2019 and the same was served on the petitioner on 13.01.2020 alleging that the petitioner is the transferee of the said land in Sy. No. 801/2B an extent of Ac. 0.26 cents and Sy. No. 801/3A an extent of Ac. 0.24 cents. Thus, the petitioner purchased the land in contravention of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “Act No. 9 of 1977”). The said notice is illegal and arbitrary as there was no sub-division of land with the said survey numbers. Apart from that, respondent No. 1 has issued notice without any authority and it is a private Zeroit land. Therefore, the provisions of Act No. 9 of 1977 have no application to the land in Sy. No. 801/2A, which the petitioner is claiming and that the notice impugned in the present petition is illegal. 5. Apart from that, respondent No. 1 has issued notice without any authority and it is a private Zeroit land. Therefore, the provisions of Act No. 9 of 1977 have no application to the land in Sy. No. 801/2A, which the petitioner is claiming and that the notice impugned in the present petition is illegal. 5. It is further contended that respondent No. 1 issued notice dated 24.12.2019 mentioning different survey numbers, which are not in existence, without following the procedure under the provisions of Act No. 09 of 1977 and such act of respondent No. 1 is against the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles of 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice. Hence, the petitioner claimed the relief stated supra. 6. During hearing, Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contentions as to the acquisition of title to the property under two different registered sale deeds referred supra contended that the land in Sy. No. 801/2 was subdivided into Survey No. 801/2 and 2A in different extents. The petitioner claiming right only in the land in Sy. No. 801/2A, but the issue of notice as if the petitioner is in possession of the property of an extent of Ac. 0.26 cents in S. No. 801-2B and 801-3A is illegal since those survey numbers are not in existence. The petitioner also produced a copy of the registered sale deeds in support of his title to substantiate his contention that he purchased the property under registered sale deeds, besides producing other material like Pattadar passbooks, title deeds and approved plan issued by Relangi Gram Panchayat for construction of poultry shed etc. 7. The specific contention of the petitioner is that no notice in Form-I was issued to the transferor and transferee as required under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 (for short “Rules 2007”), on this ground alone the notice in Form-II is liable to be set aside and requested to grant relief as claimed in the writ petition. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contended that notice in Form-I is to be served on the original assignee and notice in Form-II is required to be served on the transferee i.e. the petitioner herein as per the Rules 2007. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contended that notice in Form-I is to be served on the original assignee and notice in Form-II is required to be served on the transferee i.e. the petitioner herein as per the Rules 2007. Therefore, service of notice on the petitioner in Form-II is sufficient, consequently the same cannot be set aside as illegal and arbitrary and violation of Rule 3 of the Rules, 2007 and under Section 3 of Act No. 9 of 1977. 9. A perusal of the entire material on record, the petitioner purchased the property in two different extents in Sy. No. 801/2A of Relangi Village. According to him, the property in Sy. No. 801/2 is sub-divided, but no sub-division proceedings are placed on record by the petitioner. However, pattadar passbooks issued in favour of the petitioner discloses that he is in possession of extent of Ac. 0.71 cents in Sy. No. 801/2A in his own right, besides other extent of Ac. 0.71 cents in Sy. No. 543/3 of Relangi Village, but this item is not the subject matter of the present case. Therefore, there is prima facie material that the property in Sy. No. 801/2 is subdivided into Sy. No. 801/2 and 2A, but no material is produced to substantiate the contention of the respondents that it was further divided into Sy. No. 801/2B and 801/3A as mentioned in Form-II notice. 10. Relangi Gram Panchayat also accorded permission for construction of poultry farm by proceedings in BLR No. 23 dated 13.11.1988. The name of the petitioner is also mutated in Form 1B against Sy. No. 801/2A for an extent of Ac. 0.71 cents, Adangal of the Relangi Village of Iragavaram Mandal for an extent of Ac. 0.71 cents against Sy. No. 801/2A and nature of enjoyment is shown as “settlement”. Other documents filed along with the petition would disclose that the petitioner is paying land revenue for an extent of Ac. 0.71 cents in Sy. No. 801/2A of Relangi Village. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the land in an extent of Ac. 0.71 cents in Sy. No. 801/2A and not in Sy. No. 801/2B and 3A, but without identifying the land on ground, respondent No. 1 issued Form-II notice as per Rule 3 of the Rules, 2007. 11. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the land in an extent of Ac. 0.71 cents in Sy. No. 801/2A and not in Sy. No. 801/2B and 3A, but without identifying the land on ground, respondent No. 1 issued Form-II notice as per Rule 3 of the Rules, 2007. 11. In view of the specific contention raised by the petitioner that the issue of notice in Form-II is not preceded by another notice in Form-I as required under Rule 3 of Rules, 2007 and the same is contrary to the principles of natural justice, on this ground alone the petitioner sought to set aside the notice issued under Rule 3 of the Rules, 2007. Hence, it is apposite to advert to Section 3 of the Act No. 09 of 1977 and Rule 3 of Rules, 2007 framed under the Act. 12. According to Section 3 of Act No. 09 of 1977, alienation if any in contravention of the conditions mentioned in the assignment is void and Section 4 of the Act No. 09 of 1977 prescribed certain procedure for resumption. Section 3 of the Act No. 9 of 1977 is as follows: “3. Prohibition of transfer of assigned lands: (1) Where before or after the commencement of this Act any land has been assigned by the Government to a landless poor person for purposes of cultivation or as a house-site then, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force or in the deed to transfer or other document relating to such land, it shall not be transferred and shall be deemed never to have been transferred, and accordingly no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer. (2) No landless poor person shall transfer any assigned land and no person shall acquire any assigned land, either by purchase, gift, lease, mortgage, exchange or otherwise. (3) Any transfer or acquisition made in contravention of the provision of sub-section (1) of sub-section (2) shall be deemed to be null and void. (4) The Provisions of this section shall apply to any transaction of the nature referred to in sub-section (2) in execution of a decree or order of a Civil Court or of any award or order of any other authority. (4) The Provisions of this section shall apply to any transaction of the nature referred to in sub-section (2) in execution of a decree or order of a Civil Court or of any award or order of any other authority. (5) Nothing in this section shall apply to an assigned land which was purchased by a landless poor person in good faith and for valuable consideration from the original assignee or his transferee prior to the commencement of this Act and which is in the possession of such person for purposes of cultivation or as a house-site on the date of such commencement.” 13. According to Section 3 of the Act No. 9 of 1977, alienation, if any, in contravention of the conditions mentioned in the assignment is void and Section 4 of the Act No. 09 of 1977 prescribed certain procedure for resumption. In view of the procedure for resumption of the land, Rule 3 of the Rules, 2007 is required to be adhered to by the competent authority. There is vast difference between Rule 3 of Rules, 1977 and Rules, 2007: Rule 3 of Rules, 1977 Rule 3 of Rules 2007 3. Procedure for eviction of the transferee and taking possession and restoration of assigned lands: The District Collector or the Authorised Officer shall, before taking action under clauses (a) and (b) sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, issue a notice in Form-I to the person who acquired any assigned land in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. This notice shall be served by delivering a copy to him or to some adult male member of the family at his usual place of abode or to his authorised agent, or by affixing a copy thereof at some conspicuous place of his last known place of residence or on some conspicuous part of the land acquired by him. After the expiry of (fifteen) 15 days specified in the notice, the District Collector or the Authorised Officer shall consider the representation, if any, received with reference to the said notice and pass such orders as he thinks fit and proper. After the expiry of (fifteen) 15 days specified in the notice, the District Collector or the Authorised Officer shall consider the representation, if any, received with reference to the said notice and pass such orders as he thinks fit and proper. It is held that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, have been contravened in respect of any assigned land, a copy of the order shall be communicated to the Village Officer for taking possession of the land and thereupon the land shall be disposed of in accordance with sub-clause (b) of clause (1) of Section 4 of the Act. 3. Procedure for eviction of the transferee and taking possession and restoration of assigned lands: The District Collector or the Authorised Officer shall, before taking action under clauses (a) and (b) sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, issue notices in Form No. 1 and Form-II to the persons who have transferred and also to the persons who have acquired any assigned land in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. The notices shall be served by delivering a copy on transferor and transferee or some adult male member of the family of such transferor or transferee at their usual place of abode or to their authorised agent or by affixing a copy thereof at some conspicuous place of their last known place of residence or on some conspicuous part of the assigned land. After the expiry of (fifteen) 15 days specified in the notice, the District Collector or the Authorised Officer shall consider the representation, if any, received with reference to the said notice and pass such orders as he thinks fit and proper. If it is held that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the Act, have been contravened in respect of any assigned land, a copy of the order shall be communicated to the Village Officer concerned under whose territorial jurisdiction the land is situated for taking possession of the land and thereupon the land shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. 14. However, when Rules, 2007 are framed in super-session of 1997 Rules, Rule 3 of the Rules, 2007 alone is to be applied. 15. 14. However, when Rules, 2007 are framed in super-session of 1997 Rules, Rule 3 of the Rules, 2007 alone is to be applied. 15. According to Rule 3 of Rules, 2007, notices in Form-I and Form-II shall be served on both the transferor and transferee, whereas as per Rules, 1997, notice shall be served on the transferee i.e. the person who acquired assigned land. Even though notice was issued under Rule 3 of Rules, 2007, the same was issued to the alleged transferee only as stipulated in Rule 3 of Rules, 1997. In view of controversy, as to requirement of service of notice in Form I and Form II of Rules, 2007 it is apposite to extract Form I and Form II of Rules, 2007 hereunder. 16. Form-I of the Rules, 2007 is extracted hereunder for better appreciation: Form-I Notice under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 To, Residing in.........village.........Mandal.........District Whereas, you are found to have been assigned lands as specified in the schedule below: And whereas, it has come to notice that “you have transferred the said assigned land” in contravention of the provisions of the sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977: And whereas, under Section 4 of the Act, this land is liable to be resumed to Government for violation of provisions contained in the Section 3 of the Act. You are hereby directed to show-cause within (fifteen) 15 days of receipt of this notice as to why the assignment made to you should not be cancelled and the land be resumed to Government. The Schedule Village Survey No. Extent (Acs. Cts) Details and Date of Patta Certificate issued Name of the Transferee Nature of transfer and date Remarks (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Place................. Date.................. Signature 17. The proforma of notice in Form-I is not in conformity with the mandatory requirement of Rule 3 of Rules, 2007, as it indicates that notice in Form -I has to be served on ‘transferor’ i.e. original assignee only, but not on both ‘transferor’ and ‘transferee’ as mandated under Rule 3 of Rules, 2007. 18. Notice under Form-II is required to be served on both the transferee and transferor, but, no notice in Form-I and Form-II was served on the transferee and transferor. 18. Notice under Form-II is required to be served on both the transferee and transferor, but, no notice in Form-I and Form-II was served on the transferee and transferor. Even the content of Form-I issued under Rules, 2007, shows that, it has to be served only on the original assignee, but not on the transferee. Similarly, Form-II discloses that, it has to be served only on the transferee, but not on the transferor, the original assignee. Hence, Form-I and Form-II are not in conformity with Rule 3 of the Rules, 2007. 19. Form-II of the Rules, 2007 is extracted hereunder for better appreciation: Form-II Notice under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 To, Residing in.........Village.........Mandal.........District Whereas, “you are found to be the transferee of the assigned lands” as specified in the schedule below in contravention of the provisions of the sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. You are hereby directed to show-cause within (fifteen) 15 days of receipt of this notice as to why you should not be summarily evicted from the said assigned lands and as to why any crop or other product raised on land/lands and any building or other construction erected or anything deposited thereon should not be forfeited. The Schedule Village Survey No. Extent (Acs. Cts) Description of the land Name of the Transferor/ Assignee Nature of transfer and date Remarks (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Place................. Date.................. Signature 20. The Tahsildar and competent authority issuing defective notices to the original beneficiary or transferee of the land, without serving the same on both i.e. transferor and transferee. Similarly, notice in Form-II is required to be served on both i.e. ‘transferor’ and ‘transferee’ as per Rule 3 of the Rules, 2007, but it is being served on assignee only, without serving notice on the transferor as mandated under Rule 3 of the Rules, 2007. 21. This issue has already come up for consideration before High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Sudalagunta Sugars Limited v. Joint Collector, Chittoor and another, 2017 (1) ALT 499 wherein, the learned single Judge was of the confirmed view that, notices in Form-I and Form-II has to be served on both the transferee and transferor. But, for one reason or the other, the State is not strictly adhering to the procedure under Rule 3 of the Rules, 2007 framed thereunder. 22. The prescription of service of Notice in Form-I and Form-II on both the transferor and transferee is to afford an opportunity at every stage to alleviate the cause and to defend themselves. But, failure to give such notices, as mandated under Rule 3 of the Rules, 2007, disabled them to put forth their defence. The practice being adopted by the State is that, after serving notice in Form-I calling for explanation, the State is not passing any order, but, issuing Notice in Form-II on the transferee and finally passing orders. But, the procedure being adopted by the State and its officials is totally not in conformity with the procedure prescribed under Rule 3 of Rules, 2007. Therefore, non-issuance of notices in Form-I and Form-II on both transferor and transferee is against the procedure embedded in Rule 3 of Rules, 2007. Similarly, the notices are not containing any details, except serving proforma, prescribed under the Rules, 2007. This is also another lacuna in the procedure being followed by the State and its instrumentalities and violative of principles of natural justice. Hence, on this ground also, the notice and orders passed thereon are liable to be set-aside, for the simple reason that the transferee and transferor does not know the reason for such proposed resumption in Form-I and reason for eviction from the said assigned lands and forfeiture of any crop(s) raised in the land and any building or other construction erected as mentioned in Form-II, to give suitable or appropriate reply to the show cause notice. Thus, the practice being adopted by the State and it’s officials is not in consonance with the requirements to issue notice in calling for explanation. On this ground also, notice(s) in Form-I and Form-II are liable to be set-aside. 23. Therefore, the procedure being followed by respondent No. 1 or the competent authority in the State of Andhra Pradesh for resumption of land by issuing notice under Rule 3 of Rules, 2007 is not in conformity with the mandatory requirement. Proformas of notices itself are defective and they are not being rectified even after lapse of 13 years by the State for one reason or the other. Proformas of notices itself are defective and they are not being rectified even after lapse of 13 years by the State for one reason or the other. The way in which the proceedings are being initiated under the provisions of Act No. 9 of 1977 by the Tahsildar or other competent authority and passing orders under the provisions of the Act No. 9 of 1977 for resumption of the property creates any amount of suspension that the competent authority intentionally committing such mistakes and even the rules framed under the Act No. 9 of 1977 and forms prescribed under the Rules are also defective, but issued those notices without noticing the mistake in forms prescribed in Rules for the last 13 years. This attitude of the Officials of Revenue Department proliferating unnecessary litigation in the Courts and creating additional burden on the Courts. 24. It is an unfortunate case, where respondent No. 1 failed to follow the procedure in most irresponsible manner, issued notice in Form-II without identifying the land on ground and in violation of mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 3 of the Rules, 2007, defending such case by counsel representing the State became herculean task before the Courts, but still they are honestly defending the cases on behalf of the State though it is contrary to the litigation policy of the State. 25. Turning to the facts of the present case, the petitioner received notice in Form-II, but the same was not preceded by notice in Form-I as mandated under Rule 3 of Rules, 2007. Therefore, notice issued in Form-II by respondent No. 1 for resumption of land calling for explanation of petitioner is a serious irregularity committed by respondent No. 1. On this ground alone, notice impugned in this petition is liable to be set aside as the procedure followed by respondent No. 1 is not totally in conformity with the mandatory requirement of Rule 3 of Rules, 2007. 26. On this ground alone, notice impugned in this petition is liable to be set aside as the procedure followed by respondent No. 1 is not totally in conformity with the mandatory requirement of Rule 3 of Rules, 2007. 26. Though, there is a dispute regarding identity of the property, this Court need not decide the issue as to the identity of the property, since, it is a question of fact, apart from that as per discussion in earlier paragraphs, notice itself is defective and contrary to the principles of natural justice and Rule 3 of Rules, 2007; notice impugned in the petition is declared as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Rule 3 of Rules, 2007 and the same is liable to be set aside. 27. In the result, the writ petition is allowed declaring the action of respondent No. 1 in issuing notice in Roc. No. 3129/2019/A, dated 24.12.2019 is illegal, arbitrary and the same is hereby set aside. No costs. 28. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.