Legally assigned land prior to 1954 cannot be resumed under the A.P. Assigned Lands Act, affirming that financial improvement does not negate title rights.

The Court made the following Order:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

As both the writ appeals arise out of the same order in W.P.No.26503 of 2019, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.

2. The parties in these two appeals are being referred to, as they are arrayed in W.P.No.26503 of 2019.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner had purchased Ac.0.29 cents of land in Sy.No.235 and Ac.2.48 cents in Sy.No.243/3 of Cherlopalle Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, by way of a registered deed of sale dated 09.10.1968. The land admeasuring Ac.0.29 cents was originally assigned to one B. Subbaiah sometime in the year 1940 and the land admeasuring Ac.2.48 cents was assigned to Sri J. Nagadu in the year 1940. These lands were purchased from the Original assignees / their legal heirs.

4. The 3% respondent had passed an order of resumption, on 16.08.1987, on the ground that the father of the petitioner had purchased these lands in violation of the Provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). Aggrieved by the same, the father of the petitioner filed W.P.No.12556 of 1999 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh. This writ petition came to be disposed of with a direction to the 3° respondent-Tahsildar to reconsider the issue with reference to Section 3(5) of the Act. This Provision stipulated that if any landless poor a a — person had bona fidely purchased any assigned land, the same would be saved. After an enquiry, the 3 respondent found that the father of the petitioner was a landless poor person and restored the land, to the father of the petitioner, by proceedings dated 13.11.1990. After the father of the petitioner had passed away in November 2003, the 3 respondent again initiated proposals, for resumption of the land, on the ground that the land had been converted into non-agricultural use, for the purpose of setting up a brick kiln. After enquiry, the 3 respondent-Tahsildar passed an order of resumption dated 19.06.2006 on the ground that the land had been converted to non- agricultural purpose, which would amount to violation of the conditions of assignment.

5. Aggrieved by the said order of resumption, dated 19.06.2006, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2™ respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. This appeal was allowed by the 2™ respondent, by an order dated 15.03.2008. The 3% respondent filed a revision petition, against the appellate order, before the 1° respondent-Joint Collector, who allowed the revision petition, by order dated 30.10.2009, and restored the order of resumption passed by the 3” respondent.

6. The contention of the petitioner is that, under the provisions of the Act, only lands assigned with a condition of absolute non alienation would fall within the definition of assigned land to which the Act would apply. The Condition of non-alienation was introduced, for assigned lands, in the year ee meg eh i 1954 by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18.06.1954. The land in question had been assigned in the year 1940, without any condition of non-alienation, and consequently, the Act itself would not be applicable.

7. Respondents 4 to 10 impleaded themselves in the writ petition.

The case of these respondents is that an extent of Ac.2.48 cents of land in Sy.No.243/3 was assigned to their grandfather, namely, Late Sri J. Nagadu, in the year 1926 in the form of DKT patta and that all the subsequent proceedings between the petitioner and the official respondents would have to be set aside and they would have to be put in