Agricultural lands are not liable to be attached and sold under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act unless permission is obtained from the Tahsildar under section 47 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.

CHANDRASEKHARA SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in this Writ Petition is a Forest contractor and he owned money to the Government, and in order to recover the said amount, the Government initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Madras revenue Recovery Act. The petitioner s properties which are agricultural lands are attached and brought to sale. At this stage, the Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner praying to issue a Writ, order of direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus restraining the confirmation of sale of Survey Nos. 15, 17 and 160 situated at Village Tomapally, Armoor Taluk, Nizamabad District.

( 2 ) THE petitioner s contention was that in view of section 47 of the Andhra pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the Act), his agricultural lands are not liable to be attached and sold under the provisions of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act. Sub-clause (1) of section 47 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any decree or order of a Court, no permanent alienation and no other transfer of agricultural and shall be Valid unless it has been made with the previous sanction of the Tahsildar.

( 3 ) BUT, the learned 3rd Government Pleader relied upon section 102 of the said act, and contended that that section 47 of the Act does not apply to a case where it is the Government that seeks to bring the property to sale for any amount due to it by any person under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act. To appreciate this contention, it is necessary to quote this section which is as follows :"section 102 : Nothing in this Act shall apply- (a) to lands leased, granted, alienated of acquired in favouf of of by the government, a local authority or a Co-operative Society. Provided that nothing in this Clause shall apply to Inams lands dealt with under Chapter VI (and to such other lands as maybe prescribed ). (b) to lands held on lease (with the permission of the Collector) for the benefit of an industrial of commercial undertaking; (c) to service inam lands; (d) to Inams held by religious of charitable institutions; or (c) to any area which Government may, from time to time, by Notification in the Jarida, specify as being reserved for Urban, Non-agricultural of industrial development".

( 4 ) IN the margin it is noted that, " Act not to apply to certain lands and afeas. " and what those lands and afeas are, afe specified in the section. The lands in question which are now attached and sold undef the provisions of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act afe, admittedly, agricultural lands. Prima facie, section 47 of the Act applies to any tfansfef of those lands. Section 102 of the Act merely enumerates the categories of the land to which the provisions of the Act do not apply. But, the lands in question being admittedly agricultural lands belonging to the petitionef, they do not come undef any one of the categories enumerated in section 102 of the Act. It may be mentioned the learned Government pleader sought to bring these lands under the categofy (a) in Section 102 which mentions lands leased, granted, alienated, of acquired infavouf of or by the government, a local authority or a Co-operative Society. The lands in question do not at all come under any one of those categories. Therefore, there can be no doubt, that the argument advanced by the learned Government Pleader based upon Section 102 of the Act, cannot be accepted. Section 102 of the Act, merely takes out of the applicability of the Act certain kinds of land, and it does not save the sales of agricultural lands to which the Act would have otherwise applied.

( 5 ) THE next question for consideration is whether the lands could have been attached and sold by the Government undef the provisions of the Madras Revenue recovery Act. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in view of section 47 of the Act, the lands cannot be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document