* THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
+ WRIT APPEAL No.219 of 2008
% Dated 25-09-2023
Between:
# Ahmed Awad Bakhrayaba and others
...Appellants/Petitioners
and
$ Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Represented by its
Secretary,
Revenue Department
Secretariat,
Hyderabad and others
....Respondents
! Counsel for the Appellants : Ms. B.Vanaja Reddy for V.Venkata Ramana ^ Counsel for the respondents : Dr. J.Vijaya Lakshmi, Government Pleader for Assignment/Revenue < GIST : ---
>HEAD NOTE : ---
? Cases referred: :
1. (1984 (1) AWR 50)
2. (2003 (3) ALD 415)
3. (2006 (6) ALT 299
4. (1987 (1) ALT FB 124)
HC, J & NVSK, J
2 W.A. No.219 of 2008
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.219 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar) Heard the learned counsel Ms. B.Vanaja Reddy for Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, appearing for the appellants, Dr. J.Vijaya Lakshmi, learned Government Pleader for Assignment/Revenue appearing for the respondents and perused the material made available on record.
2. This intra Court Appeal has been preferred by the Appellants/ Writ Petitioners against the order dated 19.12.2007 passed in W.P. No.17626 of 2007 and batch by the learned Single Judge.
3. Though the common order was passed by the learned Single Judge as the facts in all the batch of writ petitions are similar, present intra Court appeal has been preferred only against the W.P. No.17626 of 2007.
4. The Appellants/Petitioners filed W.P. No.17626 of 2007 questioning the resumption order dated 19.02.2007 passed by the Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue officer, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which was confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division vide order dated 26.07.2007 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act, 1977) as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and in contravention to the provisions of the HC, J & NVSK, J 3 W.A. No.219 of 2008 Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act 1973).
5. It is the case of the appellants/petitioners that they have purchased the land to an extent of Acs.12.07 guntas in Sy.No.43 of Kothwalguda village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy district vide registered sale deeds in 1996 and their vendors have purchased the said lands in 1981 under five registered sale deeds. By virtue of the same, they contend that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the said land. It is further submitted that they have set up a Stone factory in the said land after obtaining permission from the concerned departments.
6. In the writ affidavit, it was mentioned that the Appellants/ Petitioners are running a stone quarry industry in the name and style of M/s. AQI Metal Industry after obtaining the necessary permission from the concerned Government departments and had constructed about 55 labour quarters (R.C.C.), Office over an extent of 2000 sft. It is further submitted that the workers employed in the stone crushing activity, which is being carried on in the said land, are residing in the said labour quarters.
7. While so, the Tahsildar Shamshabad issued a notice dated 14.03.2005 under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 1977 (for short 'the Rules 1977') alleging that the Appellants/petitioners have contravened the provisions of the Act, 1977. It is further submitted that the said land HC, J & NVSK, J 4 W.A. No.219 of 2008 originally was ceiling surplus land within the meaning of the provisions of the Act, 1973, but without considering their explanations dated 25.11.2005, the Tahsildar resumed the said land by the impugned notice, against which, the appeal was filed by Appellants/ Petitioners before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the same was dismissed by an order dated 26.07.2007.
8. It is the contention of the Appellants/Petitioners that the said land was ceiling surplus land and that there was no permanent restriction prohibiting alienation. Therefore, the resumption of the land under the provisions of the Act, 1977 is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1973.
9. Taking into consideration the contentions of the Appellants/ Petitioners, the learned Single Judge framed the following questions for consideration:
"1. Whether the ceiling surplus agricultural lands transferred in favour of the landless poor persons subject to the condition that the lands shall not be alienated by the transferee permanently prohibits the transferee under Section 14(4) of the Act 1973 from alienating the said lands?
2. Whether the condition on the allottee/transferee to pay, under Section 14(2) of the Act 1973 read with Rule 10(4)(a) of the Rules 1974, a sum calculated at 50 times the land revenue in 15 annual instalments from the date of allotment/transfer transforms into an absolute ownership entitling the landless poor to alienate the said land?
HC, J & NVSK, J 5 W.A. No.219 of 2008
3. Whether the allotment/transfer of the ceiling surplus lands on payment of concessional sum at 50 times of the land revenue in 15 annual instalments shall be treated as assignment of the land under the provisions of the Act 1977?
4. Whether the ceiling surplus land transferred/allotted in favour of landless poor under the provisions of the Act 1973 and the Rules made thereunder is to be resumed under the Act 1973 alone or under the provisions of the Act 1977 also?"
10. After elaborate consideration of the said questions, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that "the ceiling surplus agricultural lands transferred in favour of the landless poor containing the condition that the lands are not alienable but inheritable permanently prohibits the transferee to alienate the said lands either under the provisions of the Act 1973 or under the provisions of the Act 1977. The conditional transfer in favour of the landless poor transferring the agricultural lands on payment of 50 times the land revenue, subject to maximum of Rs.375/- in case of dry land and Rs.1,025/- in case of wet land per hectare, to be collected in 15 annual instalments, imposing a condition not to alienate such lands, even after the payment of the said meagre sum, the prohibition of transfer continues. The Act 1977 prohibits transfer of such assigned lands permanently, if a condition is imposed while transfer that such lands are not alienable. For violation of the condition imposed while transferring the lands in favour of the landless poor in respect of ceiling surplus lands or any other lands with such condition prohibiting the HC, J & NVSK, J 6 W.A. No.219 of 2008 transfer, the resumption can be under the provisions of the Act 1973 or under the provisions of the Act 1977 also. The Act 1977 itself has been enacted to protect such lands and the provisions of the Act 1977 have overriding effect over other laws including the Act 1973, as in the case of the lands situated in the Andhra Pradesh scheduled areas. Accordingly, all the questions are answered against the petitioners." Assailing the same, the Appellants/Petitioners preferred the present appeal.
11. The learned Single Judge after elaborately considering the various provisions of the Act, 1973 and 1977, observed that the aims and objects of the Act, 1977 prohibits alienation permanently in respect of assigned lands in favour of landless poor whether they are ceiling surplus lands or Government lands or waste lands.
12. In the Memorandum of grounds of appeal, the grounds raised by the Appellants/Petitioners, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to refer Section 28 of the 1973 Act, which is also a non obstante clause similar to the one contained in Section 19 of the Act 1977 and to consider the contention relating to the special law prevailing over general law. However, no submissions were made to that extent.
13. It is further submitted that disposal of surplus land under Section 14 of 1973 Act contemplates a permanent transfer unlike an assignment of land free of cost. Section 14(2) of the Act, 1973 has provided for payment of instalments in a period of 15 years and then, HC, J & NVSK, J 7 W.A. No.219 of 2008 grant of patta to the allottee. Thus, the scheme of the said provision does not fit into 1977 Act. Though the expression "assigned land" defined under the Act, 1977 takes into hold the surplus land relating to law of ceiling, but the stage of surplus land up to allotment/transfer is concerned and not after a patta is granted under Section 14(2) of 1973 Act.
14. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would support the impugned order in all respects and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
15. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the learned Single Judge has considered the relevant provisions of the Act, 1973, the Rules 1974, the Act, 1977 and the Rules, 1977. The Act 9 of 1977 has been enacted to protect against transfers and alienations of assigned lands in favour of landless poor on the model of legislation existing in regard to the Scheduled Tribes in the Scheduled areas, which prohibits alienation of lands and provides for restoration of such lands to the assignees, therefore, it has been decided to undertake legislation immediately to prohibit alienation of assigned lands to landless poor persons and to provide for punishment of purchasers of such lands.
A perusal of Section 14 of the Act 1973, reads as under:
14. Disposal of land vested in Government:- (1) The lands vested in the Government under this Act shall be allotted for use as house-sites for agricultural labourers, village artisans or other poor persons owning HC, J & NVSK, J 8 W.A. No.219 of 2008 no houses or house sites, or transferred to the weaker-
sections of the people dependent on agriculture for purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto, in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that, as far as may be practicable, not less than one half of the total extent of land so allotted or transferred shall be allotted or transferred to the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and out of the balance, not less than two-thirds shall be allotted or transferred to the members of the backward class, classes of citizens notified by the Government for purposes of Clause (4) of Article 15 of the Constitution. [(2) The land allotted to a person for the use of house- site or transferred for agriculture or for the purposes ancillary thereto, shall be assigned free of cost]
16. However, Section 14 (2) of the Act, 1973 was substituted by Act, No.3 of 2008, w.e.f. 16-4-2008 vide G.O.Ms.No.786, Rev. (L.R.), dated 25-6-2008. Prior to its substitution it read as below:
"(2) Every person, to whom the land has been allotted for use as house-site or transferred for the purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto, shall pay to the Government within a period of fifteen years from the date of allotment or transfer or within a shorter period at his option, and in such instalments as may be prescribed, a sum calculated at fifty times the land revenue payable on such land, subject to a maximum of Rs.1,250 per hectare in the case of wet land and Rs.375 per hectare in the case of dry land and on payment of the entire amount such person shall be granted a patta in respect of that land.
Explanation:- Where any land transferred under this sub-section contains any fruit-bearing trees or permanent structures, the transferee shall also be HC, J & NVSK, J 9 W.A. No.219 of 2008 liable to pay the value of such trees or the value of such trees or structures calculated in such manner as may be prescribed."
17. The learned Single Judge had placed reliance on the following judgments rendered in Kammari Balaram Vs. A.Bhoom Lingam reported in (1984 (1) AWR 50) wherein at para 13 held as under"
"Thus, the scheme of the Act (Act 1977) is a self-contained Code declaring the invalidity of the contract that never to have taken place and no right, title or interest having been acquired by the transferee from the landless poor of the Government assigned land. It is having overriding effect over the provisions contained in any other enactment. It may also be made clear that the Act was reserved for assent of the President of India, who gave his assent on 29th April, 1977 and the same has been published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 30th April, 1977. Thus, the provisions contained in the Act have got overriding effect over provisions of the Indian Contract Act."
18. With regard to the character of the land assigned on collection of a sum calculated at 50 times of the land revenue on such land, the learned Single Judge had placed reliance on the judgment rendered in Vemula Satyavathi Vs. District Collector reported in (2003 (3) ALD 415) wherein at para 6 held as under:
6. A reading of Section 14(4) and (5) of the Land Reforms Act and Rule 10 of the Land Reforms Rules together it becomes evident that even where the surplus land is assigned on collection of a sum calculated at 50 times the land revenue on such land and the character of the land is not changed, it still remains assigned HC, J & NVSK, J 10 W.A. No.219 of 2008 land. In an unreported judgment in Patakamuru Damodar Prasad v. Government of A.P., (Writ Petition No.8520 of 2002, dated 9.7.2002) , I considered the effect of Section 14 of the Land Reforms Act and Rule 10 of the Land Reforms Rules on right of assignee to transfer land to third parties and held as under:
Sub-rule (2) prescribes the maximum extent of land that can be assigned, and Sub-rule (3) lays down the procedure to be followed for allotment or assignment of Government lands for use of house-sites or for purposes of agriculture shall mutatis mutandis apply to the allotment or transfer of lands under the Rules. Therefore, wherever the Act and the Rules are silent, the revenue officials have to follow BSO 15, which deals with allotment/assignment of agricultural land and/or BSO 21, which deals with allotment of house-sites..... The Clause (2) of Para 2 of BSO 15 defines "landless poor person" as one who owns not more than two and half acres of wet or five acres of dry land and is also poor. By the very definition, a person who is not poor, but is landless, is not eligible for assignment of the land.
Indeed Rule 10(1) of the Rules obliges the Thasildar to allot surplus land to displaced tenants having no land, landless poor persons, and other poor agriculturists in that order.
A person, therefore, must be poor before seeking assignment of surplus land and also must be landless person. In this background, reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners on Rule 10 of the Rules in support of his contention that BSO 15 has no application, is misconceived and cannot be accepted.
HC, J & NVSK, J 11 W.A. No.219 of 2008
19. In Dammalapati Ramalingam Vs. District Collector, Khammam District reported in (2006 (6) ALT 299) it was held that Section 10 of the Act 9 of 1977 gives overriding effect to it over all other laws. Therefore, even if there is some other law, which enables the revenue authorities to accept relinquishment by the registered holders, but still the provisions of the Act cannot be ignored.
20. Further, a full bench of this Court in Dharma Reddy Vs. Sub-Collector, Bodhan reported in (1987 (1) ALT FB 124) held that the manifest intention of the Legislature is to save the landless poor persons from the clutches of the rich and the resourceful, who deprived them of the precious title to the small plots of land assigned to them by the Government, which alone provided them occupation and the source of livelihood and the provisions of Act 1977 have retrospective operation. Section 3(1) of the Act not only prohibits transfer of the assigned land on or after the commencement of the Act, but also declares retrospectively that all transfers of such assigned land which took place prior to coming into force of the Act shall also be null and void, non est in the eye of law, and no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer.
21. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the above all judgments, held that once the ceiling surplus lands allotted/ transferred in favour of the landless poor are brought within the definition of assigned lands under Section 2(1) of the Act 1977, it cannot HC, J & NVSK, J 12 W.A. No.219 of 2008 be said that the competent authority under the Act 1977 is not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Act 1977, and opined that in view of Section 10 of the Act 1977 having overriding effect on other laws, the Act 1977 empowers the competent authority to resume the said lands.
22. In the case on hand, the Appellants/Petitioners have jointly put in their lands and used it for a commercial purpose for stone crushing purpose, which denies the benefit given by the legislation to the landless poor and is in contravention to the provisions of both the Acts. As such, the submissions to the extent that Section 14(2) of the Act, 1973 has provided for payment of instalments in period of 15 years and then grant of Patta to the allottee is not applicable to the Appellants/Petitioners case. That apart, the submissions to the extent that disposal of surplus land under Section 14 of the Act, 1973 contemplates the permanent transfer unlike assignment of land free of cost and also in terms of Section 14 (2) of the Act, 1973 to provide payment of instalments for a period of 15 years and grant Patta to the allottee is also not applicable to the Appellants/Petitioners case. As the Appellants/Petitioners themselves in their affidavit submitted that the subject land admeasuring Acs.12.07 guntas in Sy.No.43 of Kothwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy district was purchased under various registered sale deeds linking to their vendors who have earlier purchased under registered sale deeds. As such, the transfer of said lands on the strength of various sale deeds in HC, J & NVSK, J 13 W.A. No.219 of 2008 favour of the Appellants/Petitioners does not transform the Appellants/Petitioners as absolute owners in terms of the provision of both 1973 and 1977 Act and by operation of law, the character of the said lands would also not change.
23. Thus, the aims and objects of the Act, 1977 read with aforesaid provisions go to show that the Act 1977 prohibits alienation permanently of the assigned lands in favour of landless poor whether they are ceiling surplus lands or Government lands or waste lands.
24. The learned Single Judge has also considered the various relevant judgments rendered in the case of Kammari Balaram Vs. A.Bhoom Lingam (1984 (1) AWR 50), Vemula Satyavathi Vs. District Collector (2003 (3) ALD 415, Dammalapati Ramalingam Vs. District Collector, Khammam District (2006 (6) ALT 299, Dharma Reddy Vs. Sub-Collector, Bodhan (1987 (1) ALT FB 124, and declined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellants/Petitioners that the restriction imposed under Section 14 (4) of the Act, 1973 prohibiting alienation in respect of allotted/transferred land in favour of landless poor and such alienation cannot be permanent in nature holding that Section 14 (4) and (5) read with Rule 10 of the Rules 1974 permanently prohibits the alienation. It is further held that after the Act, 1973, the Act, 1977 has been enacted, would prohibits transfer of the assigned lands including ceiling surplus lands allotted/transferred in favour of landless poor. Once the ceiling surplus lands allotted/transferred in HC, J & NVSK, J 14 W.A. No.219 of 2008 favour of the landless poor are brought within the definition of assigned lands under Section 2 (1) of the Act 1977, it cannot be said that the competent authority under the Act, 1977 is not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Act, 1977. Hence, the Section 10 of the Act, 1977 having overriding effect on the other laws, the Act, 1977 empowers the competent authority to resume the said lands.
25. For the aforementioned reasons, we concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 19.12.2007 in W.P. No.17626 of 2007.
In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
___________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ___________________________ N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J Date: 25-09-2023 Note: L.R. copy to be marked.
B/o.
LSK