Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.GANGADHARA RAO, B.P.JEEVAN REDDY
Vemulapalli China Kondayya - Appellant
Versus
District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru - Respondent
Decided On : 10-09-80
ANDHRA PRADESH ASSIGNED LANDS (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFERS) ACT, 1977 - SECTIONS 3, 4 - INTERPRETATION - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - MEANING OF "PERSON" AND "GOOD FAITH" - SCOPE OF SECTION 3(5) - PROCEDURE FOR RESTORATION OF ASSIGNED LANDS.
Fact of the Case:
The Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act 9 of 1977) was enacted to prohibit the transfer of assigned lands, which were granted to landless poor persons by the Government, in order to prevent the exploitation of these persons by money lenders and other wealthy individuals. The Act was challenged on various grounds, including its retrospective effect, the meaning of "person" and "good faith" in Section 3(5), and the procedure for restoration of assigned lands under Section 4.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Act was retrospective and applied to transfers made before its commencement, as it was intended to address the widespread problem of alienation of assigned lands. The Court also clarified that the term "person" in Section 3(5) referred to a single individual, consistent with the assignment rules. Regarding the meaning of "good faith," the Court held that it was a question of fact to be determined based on the circumstances of each case, considering factors such as whether the purchaser had knowledge of the land being assigned and whether due care and attention were exercised during the transaction.
Issues: 1. Whether the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 is retrospective in effect? 2. What is the meaning of "person" in Section 3(5) of the Act? 3. What is the meaning of "good faith" in Section 3(5) of the Act? 4. What is the procedure for restoration of assigned lands under Section 4 of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the language of Sections 3 and 5 of the Act, as well as the objects and reasons appended to the Bill, to conclude that the Act was intended to be retrospective and apply to transfers made before its commencement. 2. The Court examined the assignment rules and concluded that the term "person" in Section 3(5) referred to a single individual, consistent with the unit of assignment under the rules. 3. The Court held that the meaning of "good faith" in Section 3(5) was a question of fact to be determined based on the circumstances of each case, considering factors such as the purchaser's knowledge of the land being assigned and the exercise of due care and attention during the transaction. 4. The Court clarified that the procedure for restoration of assigned lands under Section 4 involved taking possession of the land, evicting the person in possession, and restoring the land to the original assignee or their legal heirs. The Court emphasized that the land could only be restored once, and if the original assignee or their legal heirs transferred the land again, it would be resumed by the Government for assignment to another landless poor person.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions in part, setting aside the impugned orders and remitting the matters back to the authorities for fresh consideration in accordance with the interpretations and observations made in the judgment. The Court also issued a writ of prohibition restraining the Government from entertaining a revision against the Tahsildar's order in one of the cases.
( 1 ) OVER the fast few decades, the Government has been assigning Government lands to landless poor persons, with the object of improving their economic lot. Certain Rules have been framed by the Government from time to time, governing such assignment. It is unnecessary for the present purposes to refer to them in any detail, except to mention that most often these Rules and the pattas granted thereunder contained a condition of non-alienability. While the assigned land was heritable, it was made non-transferable. The idea was to ensure that the assignees continue to derive benefits from the lands assigned to them. If the money lenders or other ryots in the village were allowed to take advantage of the helplessness and misery of these landless poor persons, it was assumed, they would take away the land, thus reducing the assignees to their original status of landless poor. But, the Government appears to have found in practice that the said condition of non-alienability has been honoured more in breach. A large extent of land assigned to the landless poor found its way into possession of better placed ryots and money-lenders, thus defeating the very object behind the assignment which was almost universaly free. When action was taken for resuming or restoring the land to the original assignees the transferees raised several legal objection, delaying and defeating those efforts. Accordingly, it appears, the Legislature of Andhra Pradesh found it advisable to make a law, prohibiting transfer of such assigned lands. In the first instance, an Ordinance called the "andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Ordinance" was issued in 1977, which was later replaced by an Act, called "andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act" being Act, No. 9 of 1977. The statement of objects and reasons appended to the Bill discloses the reasons behind, and the objects sought to be achieved by, the enactment. It reads:"the Government have launched, with effect from the 1st Nov. , 1969, a special crash programme for assignment of Government waste lands to the landless poor persons. The rules regarding assignment of land and the conditions incorporated in D Form pattas prohibit alienation of such lands and provide for its resumption as well as re-grant to eligible persons. However, past experience has shown that substantial extents of lands assigned to landless poor persons have been actually alienated and are in possession of well-to-do persons. As the existing rules do not have any provisions for punishment of persons who have purchased such lands, efforts made for assigning large extents of lands to landless poor persons are going waste. With a view to enforce the objective more effectively, it is considered that a protective legislation is necessary so as to prescribe a punishment to persons who have purchased such lands. Further, there have been requests, from time to time, for enacting a protective legislation against transfers and alienations of assigned land on the model of legislation existing in regard to the Scheduled Tribes in the scheduled areas of Andhra Pradesh, which prohibits alienation of lands and provides for restoration of such land to the assignees. It has therefore been decided to undertake legislation immediately to prohibit alienation of lands assigned to landless poor persons and to provide for punishment of purchasers of such lands. As the State Legislature was not then in session as it was decided to give effect to the above decision immediately, the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Ordinance 1977 was promulgated by the Governor on 21st Jan. , 1977. This Bill seeks to replace the said Ordinance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "
( 2 ) A brief reference to the provisions of the enactment would be appropriate at this stage. The expression "assigned lands" is defined by Clause (1) in Section 2 of the Act It means"lands assigned by the Governme
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
