Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.
Gail Nageshwar Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 37062 of 2014
Decided On : 02-02-2023
ASSIGNED LANDS - NON-ALIENABILITY - POT ACT - ROR ACT - Whether the land assigned to the landless poor can be transferred - Whether the provisions of the POT Act are retrospective in operation - Whether the Joint Collector has the power to cancel the Pattadar passbooks and title deed books issued to the petitioners' vendors.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners purchased plots of land in a layout formed by the 3rd respondent, who claimed to be a legal heir of the original assignee. The Joint Collector held that the petitioners were not entitled to any rights in the land as they were not landless poor persons and that the sale in their favor was contrary to the conditions of the assignment of the land. The Joint Collector also directed that the Pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favor of the purchaser under the ROR Act be canceled.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned order suffers from serious infirmities. The court found that there was no documentary evidence to show that the condition of non-alienation was included in the original patta. The court also found that the Joint Collector did not consider the fact that there were a series of transactions by registered documents from 1951 onwards, that a layout was approved, and that individual plots of land were sold to various persons including the writ petitioners. The court also held that the Joint Collector did not have the power to cancel the Pattadar passbooks and title deed books issued to the petitioners' vendors.
Issues: 1. Whether the land assigned to the landless poor can be transferred? 2. Whether the provisions of the POT Act are retrospective in operation? 3. Whether the Joint Collector has the power to cancel the Pattadar passbooks and title deed books issued to the petitioners' vendors?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the land assigned to the landless poor can be transferred if the original patta does not contain a condition of non-alienation. The court also held that the provisions of the POT Act are not retrospective in operation and, therefore, do not apply to assignments made prior to the enactment of the Act. 2. The court held that the Joint Collector does not have the power to cancel the Pattadar passbooks and title deed books issued to the petitioners' vendors.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the writ petition.
JUDGMENT
1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners for writ of certiorari questioning the order dtd. 22/11/2014 in RC No.E2/2830/2014.
2. This Court has heard Ms. Priyanvita, learned counsel appearing for Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 4; and Sri B. Abhay Siddhanth Mootha, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent for Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri.
3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dtd. 22/11/2014 by which it was held that the petitioners are not entitled to any rights in the land which they have purchased holding that since they are not landless poor persons and that the sale in their favour is contrary to the conditions of the assignment of the land. It also directed that Pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the purchaser under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books. Act 1971 (for short "ROR Act") is cancelled. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the land in Sy.No.920/1 originally belongs to four people; who have mortgaged the same in 1950 under a Registered Mortgage Deed No.908/1950, dtd. 15/5/1950 and availed a loan. Since they could not repay the loan they sold the property to the mortgagor through a registered sale deed dtd. 22/11/1953. The purchaser sold the property to Golla Seshanna under a registered sale deed in 1957. G.Seshanna in turn sold the land in 1975 to one B.C. Rajeswaramma under the registered sale deed. The said Rajeswaramma formed a layout, after obtaining the permission from the Kurnool Municipal Corporation, and sold various bits of land. The petitioners are the purchasers of plots of land in the said layout. Learned counsel submits that all these facts are not seriously in dispute. Learned counsel points out that the mortgage and sale of the property etc., from 1950 to 2006 etc., is noted in the impugned order. Learned counsel submits that the 3rd respondent claiming to be a legal heir of the original assignee has filed an application before the Joint Collector who entertained the same and came to the conclusion that the petitioners are not landless poor persons, that their sales are contrary to the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short "POT Act") and the land should, therefore, be allotted to the 3rd respondent. Learned counsel points out that the assignment was initially made in 1922 and there is no record filed by the 3rd respondent to prove that there is a condition against non-assignment in the assignment. It is also argued that assignments made prior to 1954 do not have the condition of non-alienation. Lastly, it is submitted that the provisions of the POT Act are not retrospective in operation and they will not apply. It is also pointed out information obtained under the RTI Act shows that the 3rd respondent has obtained Pattadar passbook in his name. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners by relying upon judgment of the learned single Judge of the combined High Court reported in Shaik Abdul Kalam Azad and Ors., v A. Babu and Ors., Manu/AP/0575/2017. argues that her submissions are fully supported by this judgment. She points out that the learned single Judge relied upon earlier judgments of this Court where the Court noticed that prior to 1954 there was no condition with regard to non-alienation and that in the absence of original patta being filed the 2nd respondent did not have any material to come to a conclusion that the land could not be alienated. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the writ petitioners are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, who appears to the official respondents argues in line with the counter. He points out that the land was assigned, with a condition of nonalienability as per BSO 15 (37)(4)(i) since the land was assigned to depressed class people. He also argues the tran
The land assigned to the landless poor can be transferred if the original patta does not contain a condition of non-alienation. The provisions of the POT Act are not retrospective in operation and, t....
The failure to produce the original patta leads to an adverse inference, and prior to 1954, there was no prohibition for the assignee to sell the land.
The definition of 'assigned land' under the Assigned Lands Act requires an absolute non-alienation condition, which was not present in the original assignment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that authorities must establish that land is assigned with a condition prohibiting alienation before initiating proceedings under the A.P. Assigned....
The absence of a non-alienation clause in the original land assignment means it cannot be classified as assigned land under the A.P. Assigned Lands Act, allowing for its registration.
Point of Law : If land assigned to landless poor persons under Laoni Rules, there must be condition of non-alienation as per settled law, otherwise it cannot be declared as void transaction.
The court established that adherence to procedural requirements in eviction proceedings under the A.P. Assigned Land Prohibition of Transfers Act is essential for the validity of such orders.
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
