Sabbavarapu Appanna, ... vs R.D.O. Visakhapatnam Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 1357 AP

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                          &
        HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

                    WRIT APPEAL No.218 of 2008

                    (Through Video Conferencing)

SabbavarapuAppanna, S/o. late Appanna, aged 58
Years, R/o. Aganampudi, GajuwakaMandal,
VisakhapatnamDistrict, and 14 others                  ... Appellants

                                 Versus

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam,
and 7 others                                         ... Respondents

Counsel for the appellants          : Mr.VedulaVenkataramana,
                                      Sr. Advocate

Counsel for respondents 1, 2& 8     : Mr.PonnavoluSudhakar Reddy,
Additional Advocate General

Counsel for respondents 3 to 7      : Mr.Kochiri Raja Shekar

Date of hearing                     :17.02.2021

Date of judgment                    :04.03.2021


                          JUDGMENT

(Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated

19.12.2007, passed in W.P.No.2985 of 2003 and W.P.Nos.16078,

17626, 20308 and 24528 of 2007, by the petitioners of W.P.No.2985 of

2003, challenging dismissal of the Writ Petition.

2. The case of the writ petitioners is that they were given

individual orders of allotment of the land, totally admeasuring

Ac.30.74 cents in Sy.No.56(1) and (2) of Aganampudi village,

Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, by the Tahsildar,

Anakapalli, vide proceedings dated 12.05.1977 in exercise of powers HCJ & CPKJ

under Section 10(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on

Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short "the 1973 Act") and they

were required to pay stipulated amount within a period of 15 years.

They had paid the total amount by the year 1992 and, thus, they have

absolute and unfettered right and ownership over the land, which is

not fit for cultivation as it consists of uneven contour and big rocks.

Their pattas were cancelled by the proceedings of the 1st respondent,

dated 30.11.1993 on the ground that the land had not been cultivated

and Writ Petition being W.P.No.6998 of 1999 having been filed

challenging the cancellation of allotment, the same was allowed by

this Court by judgment dated 08.08.2001.

3. The present Writ Petition came to be filed, challenging the

notice dated 25.01.2003, issued by the 1st respondent in exercise of

powers under Section 14 (5) of the 1973 Act, asking the petitioners to

show cause within a period of 30 days from the date of communication

of the notice, as to why he should not order resumption of the land

referred to in the two documents as indicated in the notice, by

forfeiting of the amount paid in terms of Section 14 (2) of the 1973

Act, by virtue of and in accordance with the provisions contained in

Section 14 (5) of the 1973 Act, read with Rule 10 (5) of the Rules

made.

4. In the said notice, which was issued to 18 petitioners, it was

indicated that they had entered into two sale agreements/General

Power of Attorney in respect of the land for which pattas were given

to them, covered by Sy.No.56 (1) and (2) of Aganampudi village,

GajuwakaMandal, Visakhapatnam District, with one Namburu HCJ & CPKJ

Srinivasa Rao, Project Manager, G.P.R. Housing Private Limited,

under two registered documents - one to the extent of Ac.26.28 cents

in Sy.No.56 (1) and (2) for a consideration of Rs.28,90,800/- and other

to the extent of Ac.4.46 cents for a consideration of Rs.4,90,600/-. It is

further indicated in the said notice that they had authorized the

General Power of Attorney holder to form layout of the house sites

approved by Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority and to

secure clearance from the Special Officer (Urban Land Ceiling) to sell

away the house site plots to intending purchasers and get sale deeds

registered on their behalf. It is also stated therein that, from the said

two documents, it is clear that they had deliberately alienated the

aforesaid land in favour of the said Namburu SrinivasaRao, in

violation of the conditions of transfer of land, in contravention of the

provisions of law and in violation of Section 14(4) of the 1973 Act read

with conditions prescribed under clause (iii) of sub-section (4) and

clauses (a) to (g) of Rule 10 of the Rules.

5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Revenue Divisional officer,

it is stated that the petitioners were allotted surplus land as

contemplated under Section 14 (4) of the 1973 Act and each of the

petitioners was granted Ac.2.19 cents of land in terms of Section 14(4)

of the Act. One of the conditions laid out was that the land shall not

be alienated in any manner whatsoever. The payment in terms of

Section 14(2) of the 1973 Act, was made by the petitioners and the

petitioners were granted patta in the year 1977 itself (perhaps should

have been 1992). The assertion of the petitioners that they have

become absolute owners of the lands and that they had right to HCJ & CPKJ

alienate the lands, was denied and, in that connection, reliance was

placed on Section 14 (4) (1), 14 (5) and Rule 10 (4) (g) of the Andhra

Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules,

1974. It is stated that the petitioners, having been identified as

eligible persons under the 1973 Act, were allotted lands on payment

of a very nominal amount, which does not represent the market value

calculated at 50 years assignment.

6. The learned single Judge opined that, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, four questions had arisen for consideration

and the said questions were enumerated in paragraph 12 of the order

as follows:

"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 installments from the date of

allotment/transfer transforms into an absolute ownership

entitling the landless poor to alienate the said land?

3. Whether the allotment/transfer of the ceiling surplus

lands on payment of concessional sum at 50 times of the HCJ & CPKJ

land revenue in 15 annual installments 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?"

7. The answers to these questions were recorded in a composite

manner in paragraph 21 of the order and, as such, it will be

appropriate to extract paragraph 21, in its entirety.

"21. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

case, it has to be held 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

installments, imposing a condition not to alienate such

lands, even after the payment of the said meager 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.

HCJ & CPKJ

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 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."

8. It will be relevant at this stage to note that the Writ Petition

was filed by 18 petitioners. However, copy of the judgment and order

indicates 15 petitioners and the appeal is also preferred by the

aforesaid petitioners whose names appear in the copy of the judgment

and order.

9. Writ Appeal, as was originally filed, had two respondents, viz.,

Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam and the Mandal Revenue

Officer, GajuwakaMandal, Visakhapatnam District.

10. In the Writ Appeal, 5 persons filed an application for impleading

themselves and, by order dated 05.02.2014, they were impleaded as

respondents 3 to 7. Later on, the State of Andhra Pradesh,

represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, was also

impleaded at the instance of the writ petitioners, as respondent No.8,

by order dated 20.10.2020.

HCJ & CPKJ

11. In the affidavit of respondents 3 to 7, it is stated that the land

assigned in the name of the writ petitioners was not vested in the

Government and the said land was gifted to Bhoodan Yagna Board

way back in the year 1956 and, that, without giving notice to Bhoodan

Yagna Board, and without intimating the family of late Tiyyali

Sankaraiah, who donated the land to Bhoodan Yagna Board, the land

was allotted to the writ petitioners and at the instance of G.P.R.

Housing Society, alienation proceedings were created in favour of the

writ petitioners and the same was sold to G.P.R. Housing Society. It

is stated that the Writ Appeal is pursued in the name of dead persons

and the Writ Petition was rightly dismissed.

12. Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel, appearing

for the appellants, submits that the appellants, having made full

payment of the instalments, have become pattadars by operation of

law, and after making payment of the entire instalments, they no

longer remain "transferees". He submits that Section 14 (4) and (5) of

the 1973 Act apply during the stage when the transfer of land has not

matured into patta. It is also contended that payment of amount is a

consideration for grant of patta in terms of Section 14(2) of the Act

and Section 14(3) of the 1973 Act makes it clear that default in

payment of yearly instalments would lead to resumption of land and

forfeiture of the amounts already paid and since there was no default

in payment of the instalments by the appellants, question of

resumption of land or forfeiture of the amount do not arise. It is

contended by him that the learned single Judge committed error of

law in placing reliance on the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh HCJ & CPKJ

Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short "the

1977 Act"), as assignment of the land is altogether different from

disposal of surplus land, which got vested with the State as observed

in Section 14 of the 1973 Act. He contends that when a patta is issued

after making complete payment of instalment amounts, title will

devolve on the transferee and, therefore, there can be no question of

resumption of land or permanent restraint on alienability of the land.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that if an interpretation is given that

restraint in transfer of land is perpetual, such a stipulation would be,

ex facie, illegal.

13. He relies on the decision in the case of Union of India (UOI)

and Ors. Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and

Ors. reported in MANU/AP/0801/2002 = 2002(5) ALD 532, wherein

a Division Bench of this Court had observed that pattadar, in the

context of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act,

1317 F. (Act No.VIII of 1317 Fasli) means a person who possess title to

the land and whether he is in possession of the land or not, is

responsible to the Government for payment of land revenue.

14. Placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Syed

Jalal and others, Appellants v. Targopal Ram Reddy and

others, reported in AIR 1970 AP 19, he submits that transfer of a

right of occupancy or of the patta of holding insofar as Andhra

Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F. (Act No.VIII of

1317 Fasli) is concerned, would equally be a transfer of all that is

necessary to effectually transfer agricultural land and vest a title to

whom it is transferred. In this connection, he has drawn the attention HCJ & CPKJ

of the Court to a judgment in the case of Manchegowda and others

v. State of Karnataka and others, reported in (1984) 3 SCC

301with particular emphasis on paragraph 17.

15. Mr. Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy, learned Additional Advocate

General, appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 8, submits that learned

single Judge has considered all aspects of the matter in the correct

perspective and no interference is called for with regard to

the order under appeal. He has placed reliance on the 1977 Act, with

particular emphasis on Section 2(1), 3 and 10.

16. Mr. Kochiri Raja Shekar, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 7

submits that learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ

Petition and the same does not warrant any interference in this

appeal.

17. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and perused the materials on record.

18. There is no dispute that pattas have been granted in respect of

the appellants on payment of amount stipulated.

19. Though the learned single Judge had extracted Section 14 of the

1973 Act, to appreciate the contentions of learned counsel for the

parties, it will be appropriate to extract the same in this judgment

also. Section 14 of the 1973 Actreads as follows:

"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 HCJ & CPKJ

artisans or other poor persons owning no houses or house-sites,

or transferred to the weaker-sections of the people dependent on

agriculture for 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 classes, classes of citizens notified by the Government

for purposes of Clause (4) of Article 15 of the Constitution.

(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

installments 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

subsection contains any fruit-bearing trees or permanent

structures, the transferee shall also be liable to pay the value of HCJ & CPKJ

such trees or structures calculated in such manner as may be

prescribed.

(3) Where any persons fails to pay the sum referred to in

subsection (2) or any installment thereof the Revenue Divisional

Officer may, subject to such rules as may be prescribed, resume

the lands after giving an opportunity to the person concerned of

making a representation in this behalf and the amount already

paid by such person to the Government shall be liable to be

forfeited to the Government.

(4) Any transfer of the land under this Section shall be

subject to:

(i) the condition that the land shall not be alienated by the

transferee by way of sale, gift, mortgage, lease or in any manner

whatsoever otherwise than by way of mortgage in favour of the

Government, a bank or a Co-operative Society, including a land

mortgage bank; and

(ii) the condition that where the land transferred in an

orchard, the transferee shall continue to maintain such land as

an orchard; and

(iii) such other condition as may be prescribed.

(5) Any alienation effected or other act done in respect of

any land in violation of the conditions specified in sub-section (4)

shall be null and void; and the Revenue Divisional Officer shall

resume the land after giving an opportunity to the persons

affected of making a representation in this behalf.

HCJ & CPKJ

(6) Notwithstanding anything in this section, the

Government may;

(i) lease out any land vesting in them under this Act for

such purposes and on terms and conditions as may be specified

by them; or

(ii) reserve such land for any common use or benefit of the

community."

20. A perusal of the above provision goes to show that the land

vested in the Government under the 1973 Act shall be allotted for use

as house-sites for agricultural labourers, village artisans or other

houseless poor persons; or shall be transferred to landless poor

persons for purposes of agricultural or for purposes ancillary thereto.

Section 14(2) of the 1973 Act provides that the 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, 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.

21. Section 14(3) of the 1973 Act provides that where any persons

fail to pay the sum referred to in sub-section (2) or any instalment

thereof, the Revenue Divisional Officer may, subject to such rules as

may be prescribed, resume the lands after giving an opportunity to the HCJ & CPKJ

person concerned of making a representation in this behalf and the

amount already paid by such person to the Government shall be liable

to be forfeited to the Government.

22. In the instant case, having regard to the factual matrix, Section

14(3) of the 1973 Act has no application. Section 14(4) of the 1973 Act

provides that any transfer of land under Section 14 shall be subject to

the condition that the land shall not be alienated by the transferee by

way of sale, gift, mortgage, lease or in any manner whatsoever

otherwise than by way of mortgage in favour of the Government, a

bank or a Co-operative Society, including a land mortgage bank; and

the condition that where the land transferred in an orchard, the

transferee shall continue to maintain such land as an orchard; and

such other conditions as may be prescribed.

23. Mr.VedulaVenkataRamana, learned Senior Counsel for the

appellants, seeks to contend that Section 14 (4) (i) & (ii) of the 1973

Act would be attracted in a situation where full payment was not yet

made and Section 14(4) of the 1973 Act has application during the

interregnum period prior to grant of patta.

24. In Section 14(1) of the 1973 Act, two expressions have been used

- "allotment" and "transfer". Though in Section 14(4), expression

"transfer" is used, according to our understanding, having regard to

the provisions of the Section, the word "transfer" carries the same

meaning as "allotment", inasmuch as from the date of allotment or

transfer, on due payment of instalments within the period prescribed,

both the allottee and the transferee are granted a patta in respect of HCJ & CPKJ

the land which had been allotted or transferred. There is nothing to

indicate in Section 14(4) of the 1973 Act that the condition that the

land shall not be alienated applies only before the patta is issued as is

sought to be contended by Mr.Venkataramana, learned Senior

Counsel. The use of the word "under this Section" as appearing in

Section 14(4) of the 1973 Act negates any such assumption. In the

context of the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the

appellants that the learned single Judge was not justified in taking

recourse to the provisions of the 1977 Act, it will be necessary to take

note of the provisions as contained in Section 2(1), Section 3 and

Section 10 of the 1977 Act. Section 2(1) provides that unless the

context otherwise requires, "assigned lands" means lands assigned by

Government to the landless poor persons under the Rules for the time

being in force subject to the condition of non-alienationand includes

land allotted or transferred to landless poor persons under the

relevant law for the time being in force relating to land ceilings; and

the word "assigned" shall be construed accordingly. Explanation to

Section 2(1)provides that a mortgage in favour of the entities as

indicated therein, such as, Central Government, State Government

etc., and they shall not be regarded as alienation.

25. A perusal of Section 2(1) of the 1977 Act goes to show that

assigned land takes within its fold land allotted or transferred to

landless poor persons under the 1973 Act.

26. Section 3 of the 1977 Act prohibits transfer of assigned lands.

Section 10 provides that provisions of the Act shall have effect

notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any HCJ & CPKJ

other law for the time being in force or any custom, usage or contract

or decree or order of a court, tribunal or other authority. Therefore,

there is no manner of doubt that the provisions of the 1977 Actwill

have overriding effect over any other law notwithstanding anything

contained in such law.

27. Under Section 4(5) of the 1977 Act, where any assigned land is

in possession of a person, other than the original assignee or his legal

heir, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is provided, that there is

contravention of the provisions of Section 3(1) of the 1977 Act. In that

context, learned single Judge had relied on a Full Bench decision in

the case of Dharma Reddy v. Sub-Collector, Bodhan, reported in

1987 (1) ALT FB 124, wherein it was 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 1977 Act 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,

nonest 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.

28. In the case of Manchegowda (supra), on which reliance was

placed by Mr.Venkatarmana, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held

that condition imposed against transfer for a particular period of lands HCJ & CPKJ

granted essentially for the benefit of the grantees cannot be said to

constitute any unreasonable restriction. But, the present case being a

case where prohibition of transfer is sought to be contended by the

State as perpetual, such prohibition constitutes an unreasonable

restriction, he seeks to contend.

29. We do not find force in the argument. The allottes or the

transferees were allotted or transferred the land that vested in the

Government for use as house-sites being agricultural labourers,

village artisans or other poor persons owning no houses or house-sites

or weaker-sections of the people dependent on agriculture for

agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto. As held by the Full

Bench in the case of Dharma Reddy (supra), the manifest intention

of the Legislature is to save the landless poor persons from the

clutches of the rich and the resourceful and that is why the

Government not only prohibited transfer of the assigned land on or

after the commencement of the 1977 Act, but also declared

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.

30. If any alienation is effected in respect of any allotted or

transferred land in violation of the conditions specified in Section

14(4) of the 1973 Act, the Revenue Divisional Officer can certainly

take steps in terms of Section 14(5) of the 1973 Act. That is what was

done in the instant case.

HCJ & CPKJ

31. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal

and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending

miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                      C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

MRR