( 1 ) THIS writ petition by the petitioner gives rise to a short question of law relating to the scops and application of Section 3 (1) of the Andhra pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 2 ) IN order to. understand the scope of the question, it is necessary to briefly state the admitted facts, which gave rise to it. One Noothalapati nagadu of Nallajerla village. Tadepalligudem taluk in the district of West godavari was assigned an extent of 7 acres 24 cents in R. S No. 793/3a of nallajerla village by the Tahsildar, Tadepalligudem on September 8, 1936 under d Form patta subject to the terns and conditions indicated therein. One of the terms and conditions was that no assignment or sale of Government land shall be made to a person other than a British subject or a subject in any native State without the permission of the Government; otherwise the grant shall be null and void. The assigned land was in the possession and enjoyment of the grantee Noothalapati Nagaiah till May 29, 1955 when he had sold the same for a sum of Rs. 400/- to Bommaraddipalli Jogiraju, village Karnam who had, under a registered settlement deed dated September 30, 1957, gifted this land to his wife, the writ petitioner, who is in possession and enjoyment of the same till now. The impugned notice dated 22 9-1977 was issued by the Tahsildar as to why the transfer of the land in favour of her husband by Noothalapati Nagaiah, the assignee should not be cancelled as the same was illegal and void. She was asked to make her representation, if any on or before 28-9-1977. The petitioner submitted her explanation, within the time granted to her, to the effect that Act 9 of 1977, under which the impugned notice for cancellation of the assignment was issued, was not retrospective, that the pat a granted originally to Nagaiab was not a conditional one and that after such long lapse of time, there is not justification for cancelling the assignment and prayed for dropping further proceedings. The Tahsildar, Tadepalligudem, however, by his proceedings dated 29-9-1977 resumed the land restored the same to the legal heirs of the original grantee, holding that the alienation by the original grantee to the husband of the writ petitioner is deemed to be null and void under Section 3 of the Act, that the vendee was neither a landless poor nor a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration but was powerful, rich and influential karanam who had grabbed the land from the heirs of the assignee without any consideration and that, therefore, the petitioner cannot acquire any legal and valid rights in the land. Hence this writ petition.

( 3 ) THE submission of Mr. V. Venkatarami Reddy, counsel for the petitioner is that Act 9 of 1977 is not applicable to the case on hand is it came into effect only on January 21, 1977, that the original d from patta, a copy of which has been filed before me, did not indicate that the original assignment was to a person belonging to a depressed class community, that there was no condition not to alieneate the land, that the transfer was for valid and valuable consideration and that the impunged, unjust and without jurisdiction.

( 4 ) THIS claim of the petitioner is resisted by the learned Government pleader contending inter alia that Section 3 (1) of Act 9 of 1977, which according to him is retrospective, would apply to every assignment and subsequent transfer even if they were before the commencement of the Act, that the original assignee was a person belonging to depressed class community and the assigned land cannot be transferred without the permission of the Government, that the present transfer made by the original grantee in favour of the petitioner s husband in the year 1955 was in violation of the condition in Para 12, sub-para (3) of B. S. O. 15, which states that all government lands are only heritable but not alienable, and the transfer is null and void, that the petition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document