Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
A. ABHISHEK REDDY, J.
Muddasani Kamala, W/o. Late Ramachandra Rao – Petitioner
Versus
The District Collector Assignments, Karimnagar District – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 27904 of 2012
Decided On : 08-03-2021
Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 - Section 3 of - Assigned land “landless poor persons” Resumption proceedings - Seeking quash of - Bona fide purchase of assigned land - Delay in resumption proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
Act specifically contemplates that the “person in possession” of the assigned land shall be put on notice irrespective of the fact whether he is a first purchaser or subsequent purchaser - Once the land is held to be assigned land, the question of escaping the rigors of the provisions of the Act does not arise - The only relief, under Section 3(5) of the Act, that can be granted to a person, who has purchased the assigned land, is that he should have purchased the land under bona-fide belief provided that he should be a landless poor person - in the absence of any period of limitation for initiating necessary action under the Act, the question of interpreting the word “reasonable time” in the present case does not arise.
Result: Dismissed.
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the resumption proceedings of the primary authority in File No. B/1196/1997, dated 16.04.2005, two confirmation orders, namely the appellate authority in Appeal No. L/4179/2005, dated 19.01.2007 and the revisional authority in Revision Petition No. E3/428/2007, dated 07.07.2012 and consequently, to direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the land admeasuring Ac. 10.29 guntas in Sy. No. 30 and 38 of Rukmapur Village, Choppadandi Mandal, Karimnagar District.
2. According to the petitioner, she is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 31.10.1981 from Yerramalla Goura Raju and Satyananda Gandhi, who in turn had purchased the said land under a registered sale deed, dated 16.04.1970 bearing document No. 1165 of 1970 and under Section 50-B Certificate bearing No. A8/14571/1969, dated 05.09.1970 from Lanka Durgaiah, Chiluka Pochaiah and Lankadasari Rajaiah, who are the original assignees of the subject land. While so, the Tahsildar, Choppadandi Mandal, Karimnagar District, the respondent No. 3 herein, invoking the provisions under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’) issued a notice, dated 15.12.1997, calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why the land shall not be resumed, as the said land is assigned land and the assignees had sold the land to Yerramalla Goura Raju and Satyananda Gandhi. Having not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the respondent No. 3, vide proceedings dated 12.03.1998 in File No. B/1196/97 had passed resumption orders on the ground that the petitioner had purchased the land that was assigned to “landless poor persons.” Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar Division, the respondent No. 2 herein, who in turn, disposed of the appeal, being Appeal No. L/4512/1999 holding that the applicability of Section 3(5) of the Act has to be decided. Subsequent thereto, the respondent No. 3 had issued a fresh notice, dated 05.01.2005, to which, the petitioner had filed an explanation on 10.01.2005 contending that the provisions of the Act cannot be applied against the land and sought to drop the proposed action. However, the respondent No. 3, vide proceedings, dated 16.04.2005 in File No. B/1196/1997 has passed the resumption orders holding that the petitioner is not a “landless poor person” and therefore, Section 3(1) of the Act has no application. Challenging the said order, the petitioner approached the appellant authority, namely respondent No. 2 by filing Appeal No. L/4179/2005, and the respondent No. 2, by order dated 19.01.2007, has dismissed the appeal. The Revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the respondent No. 1 on 07.07.2012. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the subject land was assigned in the year 1961 in favour of Lanka Durgaiah, Chiluka Pochaiah and Lankadasari Rajaiah; that subsequently, the land was purchased by Yerramalla Goura Raju and his son, Satyananda Gandhi in the year 1970 through sada bainama; that the same was regularized by the revenue authorities under Section 50-B of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950; and that the petitioner has purchased the subject land in the year 1981 after verifying the title deeds and the revenue records, particularly Pahanies and also the proceedings issued in favour of the vendors of the petitioner under Section 50-B of the Act of 1950. The learned Senior Counsel has contended that the Act contemplates issuance of a notice on the original assignees as well as the purchaser of the assigned land, but however, in the present case, the respondent authoritie
Assigned Land - Resumption proceedings maintainable - Act contemplates taking action at any point of time soon after it comes to the knowledge of the officials about the contravention of the provisio....
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.
Point of law : Registered sale transaction in respect of the subject land on different occasions of petitioner’s predecessors in title established that the subject land was treated as free hold land.
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 central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of stating the nature of assignment and the conditions of non-alienation while initiating proceedings under the Andhra Prad....
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.
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....
Section 4(1)(b)(ii), but the Government raised a plea that the petitioners are not entitled to restore the land in view of the amendment of Section 4 by Act No.8 of 2008.
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
