Common Judgment:

The question that arises for consideration in these two writ petitions is: whether the prohibition contained under Section 5 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’), applies to the lands, which were brought to sale by a Co-operative Society, mentioned in Section 6 of the Act, for the redemption of mortgage, made in its favour.

Some of the villagers of Pagali, of Earpedu Mandal, and Udamalapadu, of Srikalahasthi Mandal, were assigned Government lands in various survey numbers. Few of them have raised loans from primary agricultural cooperative societies of the area, affiliated to District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Chittoor. As a security for repayment, they mortgaged the lands, assigned to them. Since the loans remained unpaid, recovery certificates were obtained from the competent authority under Section 71 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act (for short ‘the APCS Act’) by the creditor society. Thereafter, the properties were put to sale. The petitioners have purchased the lands that were brought to sale. The particulars are as under:

TABLE

After the sales in favour of the petitioners became final, their names were mutated in the revenue records, and they were issued pattadar passbooks.

Petitioners intended to sell their properties in favour of third parties. For this purpose, they approached the 1st respondent, Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti. They claim to have presented the sale deeds before the 1st respondent, for registration. It is stated that, on the information furnished by the respective Tahsildars of the Mandals, the 1st respondent is not entertaining the documents by treating the property, as assigned land.

Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, though the lands purchased by the petitioners were, at one point of time; assigned to various beneficiaries, they came to be sold by the Cooperative Central Bank, on behalf of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies, affiliated to it, for recovery of loans, raised by the assignees, on the basis of mortgages. He contends that the prohibition contained under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act, does not apply to transactions to an assignee, and financial institutions, owned by the State, such as a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, as mentioned in Section 6 of the Act.

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, took instructions at the stage of admission, and made extensive submissions. He contends that an assigned land always retains its character, and the prohibition brought about by the Act continues to operate. It is urged that an otherwise invalid sale cannot change the character of the lands, nor can bring about new legal regime. He places reliance upon the judgments of this Court in B.Ramaiah, v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Puttaparthi 1990 (1) ALT 290 and Harijana Bazarappa v. Chakarala Ranganna 2004 (1) ALD 284 (2).

The Act prohibits alienation of assigned lands. While Section 3 renders all categories of transfers of assigned land, as void ab initio, Section 5 prohibits the registration of any document, evidencing such transfers. Any sale or transfer, in contravention of the provisions of the Act, cannot change the character of land, and the objection can be raised at any point of time. Successive transactions, which are otherwise prohibited, do not bring about any change as to the legal implications.

The Legislature, however, carved out an exception as regards the prohibition imposed under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act. Section 6 reads as under:

“Sec.6: Nothing in this Act shall apply to the assigned lands held on mortgage by the State or Central government, any local authority, a co-operative society, a scheduled bank or such other financial institution owned, controlled or managed by a State Government or the Central Government, as may be notified by the Government in this behalf”.

From a reading of this provision, it is evident that if the transfer by way of mortga