ORDER : The writ petitioner in W.P.No.9832 of 2019 is the petitioner in C.C.No.962 of 2020. The W.P.No.9832 of 2019 was filed seeking a declaration that the act of the respondent in not paying the compensation to the petitioner in respect of the land in an extent of Ac.1.89 cents in Sy.No.137/3A and an extent of Ac.2.20 cents in Sy.No.137/3D/1 of Gandrajupalle Village, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District acquired by the respondent authorities under order dated 27.06.2007, as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner. 2. This Court on 25.07.2019 passed the following order: “3. In that view, this writ petition is allowed in terms of the order passed in A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited v. Ramesh Singh’s case and the respondents are directed to take up steps and pay compensation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.” The petitioner now filed the C.C.No.962/2020 alleging that subsequent to the order, the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent on several occasions seeking payment of compensation, but of no use and the respondents have wilfully disobeyed the orders passed by the Court and hence, they are liable for contempt. 3. Notice was ordered to the respondents/contemnors. The 3rd respondent filed counter contending thus: (a) The Tahsildar, Gangavaram Mandal passed orders vide Roc.A1/128/2007 dated 27.06.2007 in respect of the land in an extent of Ac.1.89 cents in S.No.137/3A and Ac.2.20 cents in S.No.137/3D1 totalling Ac.4.09 cents of Gandrajupalli Village of Gangavaram Mandal resuming the land to Government from the writ petitioner under condition No.17 of D Form patta for public purpose subject to payment of ex gratia to the D form pattadar or her legal representatives. Subsequently, prior to the payment of exgratia, the Tahsildar has observed that there was a violation of condition of D KT patta in respect of the said land and verified the land with reference to its possession and enjoyment on ground and finally observed that except an extent of Ac.0.90 cents, the remaining extent was in possession and enjoyment of five persons as follows: S. No. Sy. No. Extent Enjoyer on ground (Violation of condition of DKT) 1. 137/3D3 0.52 Sri J. Gangappa Sri Gurrappa Sri. Krishnappa Sri Munivenkatappa Smt. Yellamma 2. 137/3D4 0.69 Sub Total 1.21 3. No. Extent Enjoyer on ground (Violation of condition of DKT) 1. 137/3D3 0.52 Sri J. Gangappa Sri Gurrappa Sri. Krishnappa Sri Munivenkatappa Smt. Yellamma 2. 137/3D4 0.69 Sub Total 1.21 3. 137/3A 1.89 Grant Total 3.10 (b) The Tahsildar took steps for payment of exgratia for Ac.0.90 cents in S.No.137/3D1 in favour of the writ petitioner since she was in possession only to that extent and he stopped payment of exgratia for the remaining extent of Ac.3.10 cents as the said extent was in possession and enjoyment of five others in violation of the assignment. (c) The Tahsildar passed further orders vide Roc.A1/128/2007 dated 10.04.2008 observing that the Ac.3.10 cents of land was subjected to violation of conditions of grant and resumed the said land to Government under condition No.3 of the grant and handed over the land to the APIIC on 09.06.2008 under the category of land resumed for violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 9 of 1977 treating the same as government dry. The above proceedings became final and not questioned by anybody. In these circumstances, though assignment was made for Ac.4.09 cents in favour of husband of the writ petitioner, however, exgratia was paid to her only in respect of Ac.0.90 cents as she was eligible to that extent only. (d) The petitioner already filed another W.P.No.37079/2013 and therein filed C.C.No.556/2017 and in connection with the said case she has been paid differential exgratia of Rs.1,52,100/- in respect of Ac.0.90 cents in S.No.137/3D/1 and in the said contempt case also a detailed counter was filed. Hence, the contempt petitioner is not entitled to exgratia in respect of Ac.3.10 cents of land. 4. With the same averments, the respondents filed Review I.A.No.3/2021 in W.P.No.9832/2019 to review the order dated 25.07.2019 in W.P.No.9832/2019. 5. The petitioner filed reply affidavit denying the counter averments. It is pleaded, the respondents having admittedly resumed the lands from the petitioner, now coming up with a new and untenable plea that they have conducted enquiries and found that about Ac.3.10 cents of the land was in possession of some third parties and resumed those lands to Government and therefore the petitioner who violated DKT patta rules is not entitle to compensation in respect of the aforesaid Ac.3.10 cents. The enquiry allegedly conducted was without any notice to the petitioner and the petitioner was absolutely not aware of those facts. The petitioner was paid compensation only for Ac.0.90 cents and so far as remaining extent of Ac.3.10 cents is concerned, the respondents have to pay compensation in view of the orders of this Court. Non-payment of compensation for balance land resumed would amount to contempt. The allegation that the petitioner violated the conditions of the DKT patta is absolutely false. It is not open for the Tahsildar to issue proceedings dated 10.04.2008 that too without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner. Hence, those proceedings are not binding on the petitioner. The petitioner has not violated any of the terms of the assignment and the respondents are liable for contempt. 6. Heard Sri R. Sudhakar on behalf of Sri Vinod K. Reddy learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 7. Both the learned counsel reiterated their respective pleadings in their arguments. 8. As can be seen the main plank of argument of learned Government Pleader is that the petitioner in violation of terms of the grant alienated about Ac.3.10 cents out of Ac.4.09 cents of land to the 3rd parties and the revenue authorities have come to know about this fact after the land acquisition proceedings were initiated and found that (1) Sri J. Gangappa, (2) Sri Gurrappa, (3) Sri Krishnappa, (4) Sri Munivenkatappa and (5) Sri Yellamma were in possession of Ac.3.10 cents of the assigned land and therefore, the Tahsildar, Gangavaram/4th respondent in writ petition has passed orders vide ROC No.A1/128/2007, dated 10.04.2008 cancelling the patta of the writ petitioner for an extent of Ac.3.19 cents (Sic Ac.3.10 cents) and resumed the land from those five persons who were in possession of the said extent and handed over to APIIC. In that view, the petitioner who has violated the terms of the grant in respect of Ac.3.10 cents is not entitled to any compensation. It is contended she was already granted compensation for the remaining extent of Ac.0.90 cents of land in which she was in possession. Suppressing all these facts, the petitioner filed writ petition and obtained order and now filed Contempt Case as if the compensation was not paid to her in respect of Ac.3.10 cents of the land. It is contended she was already granted compensation for the remaining extent of Ac.0.90 cents of land in which she was in possession. Suppressing all these facts, the petitioner filed writ petition and obtained order and now filed Contempt Case as if the compensation was not paid to her in respect of Ac.3.10 cents of the land. Whereas, the contention of the writ petitioner is that she did not violate the terms of the grant and she has been in possession of the entire extent of Ac.4.09 cents and in fact the 4th respondent has, vide proceedings Rc.No.A1/128/2007, dated 27.06.2007, resumed the entire extent of Ac.4.09 cents from the petitioner for public purpose i.e., for development of industrial corridor. If the petitioner was not in possession of a part of the assigned land, the Tahsildar would not have passed the aforesaid resumption order stating that the entire extent of Ac.4.09 cents was resumed from her. Therefore, the contention of the respondents in the contempt case that she violated the terms of the grant and alienated part of the assigned land to 3rd parties and the 4th respondent found some five persons in possession of Ac.3.10 cents of assigned land and he evicted them and handed over the said land to APIIC is preposterous and untenable. It is the formidable argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that if any assignee of a Government land violates the terms of the assignment and alienates the assigned land, the Government has to follow the procedure for resumption of the assigned land from the possession of the transferees. For that purpose, the Tahsildar has to issue notice to assignee as well as his transferees and conduct enquiry before resumption of the land and cancellation of the patta. It is vehemently argued that in the instant case the respondent authorities have not issued any notice to the petitioner alleging violation of the terms of the assignment and hence, the said contention is untenable. 9. On a conspectus of facts and law, this Court finds considerable force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is vehemently argued that in the instant case the respondent authorities have not issued any notice to the petitioner alleging violation of the terms of the assignment and hence, the said contention is untenable. 9. On a conspectus of facts and law, this Court finds considerable force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the proceedings in Rc.No.A1/128/2007, dated 27.06.2007 of the Tahsildar, Gangavaram – 4th respondent in writ petition, a copy of which is filed by the petitioner along with reply affidavit, would show that the Tahsildar has resumed the Ac.1.89 cents in Sy.No.137/3A and Ac.2.20 cents in Sy.No.137/3D/1 totaling to Ac.4.09 cents from the writ petitioner for the purpose of developing industrial corridor. In the said order, he rejected the objections of the writ petitioner in view of the involvement of public purpose. That being the fact, as rightly argued by the petitioner’s counsel, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to argue that the petitioner was not in possession of a part of assigned land i.e., Ac.3.10 cents and that the same was found in possession of some 3rd parties. 10. No doubt the proceedings in ROC No.A1/128/2007, dated 10.04.2008 of the Tahsildar, Gangavaram would show that the Tahsildar has cancelled the DKT Patta of the petitioner to an extent of Ac.3.10 cents as the said land was not in her possession and she alienated to 3rd parties. However, it is the case of the petitioner that no prior notice was issued to her before cancelling the patta and even cancellation order was also not served on her. In this regard Rule (3) of A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 2007 lays down that the District Collector or the authorized Officer, before taking action under Clauses -(a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, shall issue notices in Form No.1 and Form No.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 respondents have not produced any document to show that Form No.1 notice was issued to the writ petitioner before embarking upon the enquiry to cancel her patta. The respondents have not produced any document to show that Form No.1 notice was issued to the writ petitioner before embarking upon the enquiry to cancel her patta. So, the cancellation order dated 10.04.2008 of the 4th respondent cannot be given weight since there was violation of statutory provision and consequently, the principles of natural justice. It is trite law that Form No.1 notice must precede the enquiry and cancellation of the patta of an assignee. 11. In the light of the above facts and law, the contention of the respondents cannot be countenanced. They are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner for the balance land. Learned Government Pleader sought to argue that earlier the writ petitioner and others filed W.P.No.37079 of 2013 seeking payment of exgratia to their lands on par with the patta lands and in the said writ petition the petitioner claimed compensation only for Ac.0.90 cents as she knew that she already alienated the remaining Ac.3.10 cents to 3rd parties. The reply of the petitioner was that at that instance, the petitioner was paid exgratia only for Ac.0.90 cents and full compensation was not paid on par with the patta lands of private owners and therefore the petitioner and her ilk have filed W.P.No.37079 of 2013 claiming full compensation on par with the pattadars. In those circumstances, her claim in the said writ petition was confined to Ac.0.90 cents but that does not mean that she willfully omitted the remaining extent of land as she already alienated as alleged. I find force in the contention of the petitioner. A perusal of the affidavit in W.P.No.37079 of 2013, a copy which is filed by the petitioner does not give scope to conclude that since the petitioner has alienated Ac.3.10 cents out of assigned land, she confined her claim to only Ac.0.90 cents. 12. In the result the contempt case is allowed and respondents/contemnors are directed to appear in person before this Court on 07.12.2021 for report compliance of the orders in W.P.No.9832 of 2019, failing which they shall be liable for punishment for contempt for violation of the aforesaid orders. 13. The Review I.A.No.1 of 2021 is dismissed.