The possession of an assigned land by a Bataidar (lessee) is a transfer within the meaning of the A. P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, and is void. The exception under Section 3(5) for landless poor persons who purchased the land in good faith is not applicable if there is no proof of purchase.

B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition seeks for issuance of a writ to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 30-3-1992 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bodhan, the 1st respondent herein, as being arbitrary, illegal, void and against the principles of natural justice and to declare that the petitioner is entitled to hold the property as a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration under subsection (5) of Section 3 of A. P. Act No. 9 of 1977.

( 2 ) THE undisputed facts are that the land bearing Sy. No. 233 /3, ad measuring 27 guntas situated at Penta Kurd village was a Government land and was assigned to one Mr. Patan Moulali, the 2nd respondent herein. The said land was assigned to the 2nd respondent herein. The said land was assigned to the 2nd respondent in accordance with thebeneficial scheme under Section 58-A of a. P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli on the ground that he was a landless poor person. There is also no dispute that one of the essential conditions of the said grant was that the said land was heritable, but not alienable.

( 3 ) AS the conditions with regard to non-alienability of the Government lands assigned wefe honoured more inbreach, the legislature in its wisdom, has taken note of that and enacted A. P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (A. P. Act No. 9 of 1977) thereby making the transactions of transfer with regard to assigned lands attached with the condition of non-alienation as void.

( 4 ) MR. Govind, the learned counsel, appearing for counsel for the petitioner, raised the following contentions: (1) That the impugned order suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice as no show cause notice was issued and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before directing her eviction from the land in question; (2) That the possession of the petitioner through her husband was only that of a Bataidar and that the same does not amount to lease and that the same is not hit by A. P. Act No. 9 of 1977 as it is not a transfer within the meaning of the said Act; and (3) That in any event of the matter, as the petitioner has got only Ac. 1-20 guntas of dry land, apart from 0. 27 guntas of land and the total holding being less than 5 acres of dry land even after conversion in terms thereof, the same is protected under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of A. P. Act No. 9 of 1977.

( 5 ) MS Nanda, appearing for the Government Pleader for revenue, replies: (1) That there is enough compliance of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the show-cause notice dated 12-2-1991 in case No. A5/4463/91 on the file of the 1st respondent was issued and pursuant to the same, the petitioner s husband Mr. Gade Ankama Rao, appeared before the 1st respondent and instead of filing a written reply, he had chosen to give a sworn statement voluntarily and that the same was recorded by the 1st respondent which contains a clear admission of his possession over the land in question; (2) That Bataidar is a lessee and that the same is covered by definition under section 105 of Transfer of Property Act and that consequently, it is a transfer within the meaning of A. P. Act No. 9 of 1977 and as such the same is void and the possession, be it of the petitioner or her husband, is illegal and unauthorised; and (3) That the benefit under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of A. P. Act No. 9 of 1977 is not available to the petitioner herein as she has not pleaded the same before the 1st respondent and that there is no document of purchase and that the unauthorised possession as a lessee do not come within the ambit of protection envisaged under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of A. P. Act No. 9 of 1977.

( 6 ) THE first contention of Mr. Govind, appearing for the counsel for the petitioner, that the show cause notice was not served upon the petitioner and that the was not afforded an opportunity of filing a reply and participating in the enquiry, cannot be believed as she had never stated that h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document