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.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners for writ of certiorari questioning the order dated 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 dated 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, dated 15.05.1950 and availed a loan. Since they could not repay the loan they sold the property to the mortgagor through a registered sale deed dated 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 non-alienability as per BSO 15 (37)(4)(i) since the land was assigned to depressed class people. He also argues the tr