The purchaser of assigned land cannot claim an accrued or vested right to reassign by validation of the sale as a matter of course.

ORDER :

1. Prayer sought in the writ petition reads as under:

“.......to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent No. 4 in non-considering representation made by the petitioner and non-following the provisions of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers), Act, 1977 and Amendment Act, 12 of 2018 non-granting the patta to the petitioner on his cultivating land in Sy. No. 288 to an extent of Ac. 1.00 gts. situated at Marrigudem Revenue Village Shivar, Marrigudem Mandal, Nalgonda District, is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unjust and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th respondent to consider the application of the petitioner and to follow the provisions of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and Amendment Act 12 of 2018 non-granting the patta to the petitioner on his cultivating land in Sy. No. 288 to an extent, of Ac. 1.00 gts. situated at Marrigudem Revenue Village Shivar, Marrigudem Mandal, Nalgonda District, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

3. Petitioner claims to have purchased the agriculture land to an extent of Ac. 0.13 guntas, Ac. 0.13 guntas and Ac. 0.14 guntas, respectively in Survey, No. 288 of Marrigudem Revenue Village Shivar, Marrigudem Mandal, Nalgonda District. By this writ petition, petitioner seeks mandamus to the Tahsildar, Marrigudem Mandal, respondent No. 4, to consider the application submitted by the petitioner to reassign the land purchased by him and to mutate his name in the revenue records in the place of original assignee. According to petitioner, he is also a landless poor person and he made a bona fide purchase without knowing the true facts of assignment and therefore assignment should be granted to him.

4. In support of the claim, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on amended Section 3(5) (1) [Section 3: Prohibition of transfer of assigned lands: (5) Nothing in this Section shall apply to an assigned land which was purchased by a landless poor person in good faith and for valuable consideration from the original assignee or his transferee prior to the commencement of this act and which is in the possession of such person for purposes of cultivation or as a house-site on the date of such commencement] and Section 4(1)(b)(i) (2) [Section 4: Consequences of breach of provisions of Section 3(1) (b)(i): reassign the said resumed land, other than those lands/areas as may be notified by the Government from time to time in public interest and for public purpose, to the transferee who purchased the land in good faith and for valuable consideration [on or before 31st December, 2017], subject to the condition that he/she is landless poor person, and is in occupation of the land by using the said land for agriculture or as house site, as on the date of taking possession by eviction: Provided that the reassignment in case of transferee shall be limited to only such an extent that the total holding of the re-assignee including any other land held by him/her does not exceed 5.00 acres dry land or 2½ acres wet land; Provided further that where the transferee who has purchased the land and got reassignment of it, or his legal heir, transfers the reassigned land, the land shall be resumed for assignment to the other eligible landless poor] of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act, 1977’). According to learned counsel, if a purchase was made by a landless poor person, it can be validated and reassignment can be granted to the purchaser and therefore not acting on the application submitted by