IMPORTANT POINT
The definition of 'assigned land' under the Assigned Lands Act requires an absolute non-alienation condition, which was not present in the original assignment.

JUDGMENT :

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.

Heard Sri B. Abhay Siddanth Mootha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. P. Priyanvita, representing Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 5.

2. The brief facts in the case are –

a) About Ac.0.78 cents of land in Sy.No.920/1, of Kallur Village, was assigned, in favour of late Sri Ganganna, Jammanna, Marenna and Naganna, in the year 1922, by the then Tahsildar, Kurnool. These assignees had mortgaged this land at various points of time in 1942, 1944 and 1950. The last mortgage resulted in sale of the land, as the loan was not repaid. The land was sold, by way of a deed of sale dated 22.11.1953, registered as document No.2190/1953. Thereafter, the land changed hands at various points of time and subsequently, a layout of the land was made and the plots therein were sold to the respondents 1 to 5 herein (hereinafter referred to as the private respondents).

b) At that stage, the appellant herein, claiming to be the legal heir of late Sri Ganganna, approached the Joint Collector, Kurnool for recovery of possession of the land on the ground that alienation of land by the original assignee violates the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short „the Act?) and the descendants of the assignees would be entitled to possession after the alienations have been set aside. The appellant had also produced an affidavit from all the legal heirs of the original assignees stating that they had no objection of assignment of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the appellant herein.

c) The Joint Collector, after receiving this application, treated the same as a revision and issued notices to the private respondents herein, as they were the ultimate purchasers who were in possession of the land. After hearing both sides, the Joint Collector by an order dated 22.11.2014 in Rc.E2/2830/2014 had held that the original alienation of the land was in 1953 and all subsequent alienations fall foul of the provisions of the Act, and consequently, the land should be restored in favour of the appellant after cancellation of the pattadar passbooks and title deeds given to the vendor of the private respondents.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, respondents 1 to 5 approached this Court by way of W.P.No.37062 of 2014. A learned Single Judge of this Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the writ petition by way of an order dated 02.02.2023. The learned Single Judge took the view that, in the absence of the assignment patta, it would have to be treated that the necessary condition of non-alienation would not be available, to attract the provisions of the Act. He took this view on the ground that the change in condition of non-alienation was introduced only by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18.06.1954 and all assignments of land prior to this date did not have any such condition of non-alienation which would attract the provisions of the Act. He also took the view that BSO 15(37)(4)(i) would not be attracted on the ground that the land was shown to have been assigned to the depressed classes of people. On this basis, and following the judgment, of a learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in Shaik Abdul Kalam Azad and Ors., vs. A. Babu and Ors., Manu/0575/2017 had held that the order of the Joint Collector was incorrect and set aside the same. The learned Judge also took the view that the Joint Collector had no power to cancel the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued to the vendor of private respondents, under the provisions of the Act.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant moved the present writ appeal.

5. Sri B. Abhay Siddanth Mootha, learned counsel for the appellant assails the order of the learned Single Judge on the following grounds.

a) The assignment, in the year 1922, was given in favour of persons belonging to depressed classes, wherein there was a condition of non-alienation. This aspect was not tak