ORDER : U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. 1. The petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from enforcing the impugned proceeding Rc.B./2019 dated 11.10.2019 of Tahsildar/3rd respondent in respect of the land to an extent of Ac. 0.11 cents in Sy. Nos. 308-3, 308-4, 308-5 and 308-6 of Vallampatla Village, A. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District, by holding the said proceedings as illegal without jurisdiction and consequently to set aside the same. 2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus. The petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land mentioned supra, having purchased the same from Muttamala Venkaiah, Muttamala Varahalu and Muttamala Venkateswarlu under a registered sale deed bearing document No. 2712 of 2000 dated 28.09.2000. In recognition of the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent issued Pattadar Pass Book and Adangal to the petitioner. The subject land is not an assigned land and it is also not entered in the prohibitory register. (a) While so, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned proceedings in Rc.B./2019 dated 11.10.2019 styling it as Form-II notice under Section 3 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, "Act 9 of 1977") to the petitioner stating that she is in occupation of D-Patta land as purchaser and directed her to show cause within 15 days as to why she should not be summarily evicted. The impugned proceedings does not state as to who was the original assignee and the date on which the subject land was assigned to such assignee and whether the deed of assignment contains a clause prohibiting the alienation, etc., facts. Under the law, the notice issued under the impugned proceedings shall contain these basic facts. For want of such crucial facts, the petitioner could not submit her explanation/objection. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Tahsildar/3rd respondent and informed him that the notice was bereft of the required information and requested to drop the proceedings. However, he informed her that the land was required for allotment of house sites to the landless poor persons and the petitioner has to vacate the same. He did not furnish the necessary information. Therefore the petitioner filed an application under Right to Information Act on 27.10.2019 before the 3rd respondent seeking to furnish copy of deed of assignment in respect of subject matter land. Till now, the 3rd respondent has not furnished the required information. He did not furnish the necessary information. Therefore the petitioner filed an application under Right to Information Act on 27.10.2019 before the 3rd respondent seeking to furnish copy of deed of assignment in respect of subject matter land. Till now, the 3rd respondent has not furnished the required information. For this reason also the petitioner could not submit her explanation. However, in the meanwhile, the respondents are making hectic efforts to evict the petitioner summarily, which is illegal and unjust. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The 3rd respondent filed counter inter alia contending thus. An extent of Acs. 3.00 cents of land covered by R.S. No. 308/3 of Vallampatla Village of A. Konduru Mandal is classified in the Fair Adangal as Anadheenam Punja (Assessed Waste Dry). The land has been sub-divided into R.S. Nos. 308/3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 and assigned in favour of the following individuals as per the changes incorporated in the Fair Adangal on 03.12.1971. R.S. No. Extent (in Ac. Cts) assigned Name of the assignee 308/3 0.47 Itamuri Tirupathaiah, S/o.Venkaiah 308/4 0.50 Kota Abraham, S/o.Muttaiah 308/5 0.50 Kusumaraju Tirupathaiah, S/o.Pullaiah 308/6 0.50 Kusumaraju Somaiah, S/o.Pullaiah 308/7 0.53 Ravuri Aseervadam, S/o.Lingam 308/8 0.50 Pathakotu Bitcham Reddy, S/o.Venkaiah. Total 3.00 However, the above assigned lands are now under the possession and enjoyment of the following individuals. R.S. No Total Extent  (Ac.Cts) Extent under the Occupation of the Present enjoyer (Ac. Cts) Name of the present enjoyer 308/3 0.47 0.03 Baimutaka Yasoda, W/o.Venkatanarayana 0.22 Mogaparthi Manjula, W/o.Yesudas 0.22 Phanithi Aruna, W/o.Nageswara Rao 308/4 0.50 0.03 Baimutaka Yasoda, W/o.Venkatanarayana 0.25 Mogaparthi Manjula, W/o.Yesudas 0.22 Phanithi Aruna, W/o. Nageswara Rao 308/5 0.50 0.02 Baimutaka Yasoda, W/o. Venkatanarayana 0.24 Mogaparthi Manjula, W/o. Yesudas 0.24 Phanithi Aruna, W/o. Nageswara Rao 308/6 0.50 0.02 Baimutaka Yasoda, W/o. Venkatanarayana 0.24 Mogaparthi Manjula, W/o. Yesudas 0.24 Phanithi Aruna, W/o. Nageswara Rao 308/7 0.53 0.53 Muttamala Vazram 308/8 0.50 0.50 Muttamala Vazram None of the assignees is in possession of the assigned lands and their whereabouts are not known. Therefore, it was confirmed that the assigned lands were transferred in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act 9 of 1977 and the lands are liable to be resumed to Government under Section 4 of the said Act, for violation of the provisions of Section 3. Therefore, it was confirmed that the assigned lands were transferred in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act 9 of 1977 and the lands are liable to be resumed to Government under Section 4 of the said Act, for violation of the provisions of Section 3. (a) In that view, notices in Form-I have been issued to the original assignees on 11.10.2019 to show cause within 15 days of receipt of the notice as to why the assignment made to them should not be cancelled and the land be resumed to Government. Notices in Form-II have also been issued on 11.10.2019 to the present enjoyer of the assigned land directing to show cause within 15 days of receipt of notice as to why she should not be summarily evicted from the said assigned land and any crop and other product raised on the land and any building or other construction erected thereon should not be forfeited. The 3rd respondent is competent to issue notice in Form-II and hence the same is not illegal. (b) It is submitted that though the name of the original assignee is known, the person from whom the present enjoyer purchased the land is not known. Hence, the names of the transferors were not entered in the relevant columns in Form-II issued to the writ petitioner on 11.10.2019. The petitioner is expected to file her explanation before the Tahsildar showing how she obtained the land. She has not filed the explanation and details of Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed said to be issued in her favour. The Tahsildar is competent to resume the assigned land to government for any violation. Without doing so, she simply states that she purchased the subject land under a registered sale deed dated 28.09.2000 from Muttamala Venkaiah, Muttamala Varahalu and Muttamalaa Venkateswarlu. As per the provisions of Act 9 of 1977, even the registered documents covered by the assigned land are to be treated as null and void. Hence, the notice in Form-II was issued with the available information stating that the land under the possession and enjoyment of the writ petitioner is an assigned land. The writ petitioner, without utilizing opportunities of filing the documentary evidence in her possession, simply stated that she purchased the subject land and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same which plea is not tenable. The writ petitioner, without utilizing opportunities of filing the documentary evidence in her possession, simply stated that she purchased the subject land and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same which plea is not tenable. The petitioner directly approached the Hon'ble Court by filing the instant petition without attending and submitting her explanation before the 3rd respondent. Further, the sale deed does not contain true facts and it is prepared as if the land is a patta private land. In that view, this writ petition is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed. 4. Heard arguments of learned counsel for petitioner, Smt. M. Siva Jyothi and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondents. 5. The main plank of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac. 0.11 cents in Sy. Nos. 308-3, 308-4, 308-5 and 308-6 of Vallampatla Village, A. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District and she purchased the said land from Muttamala Venkaiah, Muttamala Varahalu and Muttamala Venkateswarlu under a registered sale deed bearing document No. 2712 of 2000 dated 28.09.2000. However, the revenue authorities without conducting proper enquiry, issued notice under Form-II under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Rules, 2007 alleging as if the petitioner is in possession of the assigned land. Learned counsel vehemently argued that in the impugned notice the name of the original assignee and the date on which the subject land was assigned to such assignee and whether the deed of assignment incorporated a clause prohibiting the alienation, etc., facts have not been mentioned. Therefore, the petitioner was unable to give effective reply to the show cause notice and in spite of her approaching the 3rd respondent and requesting to furnish the particulars and also filing a petition under Right to Information Act, the authorities have not furnished the particulars. Learned counsel further argued that the Form-II notice shall not be a laconic one but shall contain relevant information that the subject land is an assigned land; it was assigned in favour of a particular person; there was a prohibition against alienation imposed in the D-Form patta; the said condition was violated and the original assignee alienated in favour of the present possessor etc. If these facts are not reflected in the notice, the same is liable to be set aside. On this point learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on a decision in Dasari Narayana Rao and others vs. Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer and others : 2010(4) ALT 655 . She thus prayed to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned notice. 6. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader argued that the subject land, as per Fair Adangal is recorded as Anadheenam Punja (Assessed Waste Dry) and it was assigned in favour of different persons but now it is in possession of the present writ petitioner and some other persons as detailed in the counter. Therefore, it is evident that the assigned land was transferred in contravention of the Section 3(2) of the Act 9 of 1977. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the particulars of the original assignee and the name of the present occupier i.e., the petitioner and some others are known. However, the particulars as to whether the original assignee has transferred the land to others directly or whether some intermediary persons purchased from the original assignee and later transferred in favour of the petitioner, could not be traced and hence those particulars could not be mentioned in the impugned notices. However, in the Form-II notices it is clearly mentioned that subject land is D-Form patta land and the present petitioner is the purchaser. She would vehemently argue that these particulars are sufficient for the petitioner to submit her explanation. Instead of submitting the objections/explanation to 3rd respondent, the petitioner rushed to this Court without any tenable ground. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow? 8. POINT: This Court gave anxious consideration to the above respective arguments. It is the precise case of the petitioner that she is the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac. 0.11 cents in Sy. Nos. 308- 3, 308-4, 308-5 and 308-6 of Vallampatla Village, A. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District and she purchased the said land from Muttamala Venkaiah, Muttamala Varahalu and Muttamala Venkateswarlu under a registered sale deed bearing document No. 2712 of 2000 dated 28.09.2000. In recognition of her valid possession and enjoyment, the revenue authorities issued Pattadar Pass Book and 1B register. Nos. 308- 3, 308-4, 308-5 and 308-6 of Vallampatla Village, A. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District and she purchased the said land from Muttamala Venkaiah, Muttamala Varahalu and Muttamala Venkateswarlu under a registered sale deed bearing document No. 2712 of 2000 dated 28.09.2000. In recognition of her valid possession and enjoyment, the revenue authorities issued Pattadar Pass Book and 1B register. She produced copies of the same along with the material papers and a perusal of these documents show that Pattadar Pass Book No. 649 was issued in favour of the petitioner for the following lands. S. No. Survey No. Extent (Ac./Cents) 1. 289-2 2.23 ½ 2. 350-2 0.61 ½ 3. 308-3 1.00 4. 308-3 0.03 5. 308-4 0.03 ½ 6. 308-5 0.02 ½ 7. 308-6 0.02 Total 3.96 Form I-B Adangal was also issued in her favour in respect of the aforesaid lands. Her emphatic case is that she purchased the subject land from her vendors. She contends that the Form-II notice is woefully silent about the basic particulars as to whether the subject land is assigned land with a condition of prohibiting alienation; the names and particulars of the original assignees, the mode of transfer of the assigned land in favour of the vendors of the petitioners etc. Therefore, she could not submit her effective objections/explanation. 9. In oppugnation, the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is that as per the particulars contained in the Fair Adangal, Itamuri Tirupathaiah, Kota Abraham, Kusumaraju Tirupathaiah, Kusumaraju Somaiah, Ravuri Aseervadam and Pathakotu Bitcham Reddy etc., are the original assignees and now the petitioner and some other persons are in possession of those lands which implies that the petitioner is the purchaser of the assigned lands in violation of Act 9 of 1977. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would fairly submit that there is no record available with the revenue department to show whether the petitioners' vendors have directly purchased from the original assignees or they purchased from their alienees and therefore the said fact could not be mentioned and she argued that the particulars mentioned in Form-II notice are cogent enough to enable the petitioner to submit her explanation. 10. In this regard, in similar circumstances, a learned Single Judge of the Common High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Dasari Narayana Rao's case (1 supra) while observing that the notices in that case being laconic, held as follows. 24. 10. In this regard, in similar circumstances, a learned Single Judge of the Common High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Dasari Narayana Rao's case (1 supra) while observing that the notices in that case being laconic, held as follows. 24. In the considered view of this Court the show cause notice dated 16.2.2002 is itself invalid. The minimum requirement of a show cause notice, in the context of an action initiated under the provisions of the 1977 Act is (a) it should assert that there was an assignment of land either under the provisions of the 1977 Act or under any Rules for the time being in force subject to a condition of non-alienation; that such "assigned land" was transferred by such assignee in contravention of the prohibition of alienation clause contained in the deed of assignment; (b) it should assert that the respondent's to the show cause notice had entered upon possession of "assigned land" under a deed of transfer which is invalid under the provisions of Section 3 of the 1977 Act. The show cause notice must of necessity contain such factual assertions to enable the recipient (of the notice) to rationally respond and submit his objections, if any, to the proceedings initiated against him under the provisions of the 1977 Act. Issuance of a show cause notice is not an empty ritual. It should provide a reasonable and fair opportunity to the recipient of the show cause notice to defend his title and possession of, the valuable right to property. x x x x 51. In the light of the analysis above, in the considered view of this Court, the show cause notice dated 16.2.2002 and the primary order of the 1st respondent dated 16.5.2002, are patently illegal and incompetent. The show cause notice is illegal since it is not a show cause notice, except in its name. It conveys no information to its recipient on which cause is to be shown. It affords no opportunity whatsoever to show cause. The show cause notice dated 16.2.2002 issued by the 1st respondent is therefore quashed. The above case applies with all fours to the present case on hand. Even as per the counter averments, the respondent authorities know the particulars of the original assignees and in the counter their details are mentioned. It affords no opportunity whatsoever to show cause. The show cause notice dated 16.2.2002 issued by the 1st respondent is therefore quashed. The above case applies with all fours to the present case on hand. Even as per the counter averments, the respondent authorities know the particulars of the original assignees and in the counter their details are mentioned. Their only case is that there is no record available with the revenue department to show whether the petitioners' vendors have directly purchased from the original assignees or they purchased from their alienees. Be that it may, in the impugned Form-II notice issued under Rule 3, except mentioning that the petitioner is the purchaser of the D-Form Patta land, the names of original assignees and whether the assignment contains a clause prohibiting alienation etc., details are not there. Therefore, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that the show cause notice does not satisfy the condition of containing the basic facts as is held in the Dasari Narayana Rao's case (1 supra). Hence, the notice is liable to be set aside. However, the 3rd respondent can be directed to issue a fresh notice with the above discussed particulars to enable the petitioner to submit her objections/explanation. 11. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned Form-II notice in Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 issued by the 3rd respondent is set aside and the 3rd respondent is directed to issue a fresh notice containing the necessary details as discussed in this order to enable the petitioner to submit her objections/explanation and after receiving her objections/explanation, conduct an enquiry in accordance with the governing law and rules and pass an appropriate order. Till such exercise is completed, the possession of the petitioner in respect of the subject land shall not be disturbed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending for consideration shall stand closed.