Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Between vs The on 13 September, 2024

Author: R. Raghunandan Rao

Bench: R Raghunandan Rao

APHC010416532005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL NO: 947/2005
Between:
Chintana Krishnaiah, (died) Per Lrs and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
The Joint Collector West Godavari and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. TURAGA SAI SURYA
2. ....
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU
2. GP FOR REVENUE
3. M P V N V SASTRI
4. .
The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

An extent of Ac.7.85 cents in R.S.Nos.176/1,176/2 & 178/1 in

T. Narsapuram Village was assigned to late Sri D. Venkat Swamy in the year

1932. After his demise his son Sri D. Anantham was in possession of the said

land. In the year 1964 Sri D. Anantham is said to have leased out this land to

Sri Chintana Krishnaiah, who is the 1st appellant herein. The informal lease
given in the year 1964 was formalized, by way of a registered deed of lease,

dated 13.09.1966. This lease was for a period of 99 years.

2. Subsequently, the wife and children of Sri D. Anantham

approached the Tahsildar for setting aside the said lease deed and for

restitution of the land in their favour. This application was made on the ground

that the land in question is assigned land falling within the purview of

Section-3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers)

Act, 1977 [for short " the Act, 1977"]. Under the Act, 1977, the legal heirs of

the original assignee would be entitled for restitution of the land. This

application was dismissed by the Tahsildar on 21.02.1986. The respondents 4

to 6, who had made this application, moved the Revenue Divisional Officer by

way an appeal. This appeal was allowed on 02.05.1993. Aggrieved by the

same, the 1st appellant moved the Joint Collector, Eluru. After hearing both

sides, the Joint Collector, Eluru appears to have allowed the revision of the 1st

appellant on 26.05.1994

3. Aggrieved by the order of the Joint Collector, the respondents 4

to 6 moved the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad by way of

W.P.No.21478 of 1994. A learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court of

Judicature at Hyderabad, after hearing both sides was pleased to allow the

Writ Petition, by way of Judgment dated 14.03.2005, and set aside the

impugned order, dated 26.05.1994, passed by the Joint Collector.
4. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the 1st appellant moved the

present Writ Appeal. During the pendency of the Writ Appeal, the 1st appellant

had passed away and the appellants 2 & 3 are brought on record as his Lrs.

Similarly, the 4th respondent had passed away and the respondents 7 to 10

were brought on record as her Lrs. Further, the 11th respondent was brought

on record as Lrs of the 5th respondent who passed away during the pendency

of the Writ Appeal.

5. Heard Sri K. Chidambaram, Learned Senior Counsel appearing

on behalf of Sri Turaga Sai Surya, learned counsel for the appellants and

Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for the 10 th

respondent and the other respondents were served that no appearance had

been entered on their behalf.

6. The Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants herein, had

contended, before the Learned Single Judge, that a Judgment of the erstwhile

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in the case of B. Seetharamamma Vs. The

Government of Andhra Pradesh. Rep by its Secretary, Revenue Department &

Ors1 covered the issue in as much as the alienations or assessments made in

the year 1932 did not contain a non-alienation clause and the same was

brought in only by way of G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18.06.1954. The learned

counsel for the respondents, had contended before the Learned Single Judge

that this Judgment has now been overruled by a Divisions Bench of the

erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vemulapalli China

1
1979 (1) ALT 79
Kondayya & Ors Vs. District Collector, West Godavari at Eluru & Ors 2. The

Learned Single Judge, accepting the said contention, had allowed the Writ

Petition and set aside the orders of the Joint Collector.

7. A perusal of the Judgment of the Division Bench in case of

Vemulapalli China Kondayya would show that the questions raised before the

Division Bench are:-

i. Whether the Act, 1977 was retrospective or prospective.

ii. Whether the land purchased by a landless poor person in good faith

and for valuable consideration from the original assignee prior to the

commencement of the Act, 1977 would be protected from the

provisions of the Act, 1977.

iii. What would be the meaning of the person occurring in Section-3(5)

of the Act, 1977.

iv. What would be the meaning of the expression "in good faith"

occurring in sub-section 5 of Section 3 of the Act, 1977.

v. The Division Bench had not considered the question of whether

lands assigned prior to 1954 would answer the description of

assigned land in the Act, 1977.

8. The Government of Andhra Pradesh had been assigning land in

the Andhra areas of the erstwhile State under the provisions of Board

Standing Orders-15 and in the Telangana areas under the provisions of the

2
1980 (2) ALT 460
Laoni Rules. As the case before this Court relates to the Andhra area of the

erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, the provisions of Board Standing Order-15

would be applicable. The said Board Standing Order, had not contained a

clause of non-alienation until 1954. It was in 1954 that the Government, by

way of G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18.06.1954, had introduced the condition of

non-alienation or inalienability.

9. As various lands assigned to landless poor persons were being

transferred in violation of the condition on non-alienation, the Act, 1977 was

enacted for the purposes of protecting the interest of landless poor persons

who were selling away the land, assigned to them, due to their poverty and

lack of knowledge of their own rights over the land.

10. The provisions of the Act, 1977 applies to "assigned land". The

said term is defined in Section 2(1) in the Act, 1977 in the following manner:-

"Section- 2:- Definitions:- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:-
(1) "assigned land" means lands assigned by the Government to the landless poor
persons under the rules for the time being in force, subject to the condition of non-
alienation and includes lands 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 constructed accordingly'

11. Subsequently, the provision has been amended as reads as

follows by way of amendment with effect from 31.07.2023:-

(1) "assigned land" means [lands or house sites assigned] by the Government to the
[landless or homeless poor persons] under the rules for the time being in force,
subject to the condition of non-alienation [within a period of twenty (20) years from
the date of assignment in the case of lands assigned for agricultural purpose, and
within a period of ten (10) years from the date of assignment in case of house
sites]. "
12. As the present transaction is prior to 31.07.2023, the un-amended

provision would be applicable. This provision clearly states that a land

assigned by the State would fall within the meaning of the term "assigned

land" only when there is an absolute bar on alienation of the land except to the

extent of mortgaging the land to a land bank or any other designated financial

institution.

13. To put it another way, it is only lands which are assigned with a

condition of non-alienation that would fall within the ambit of the Act, 1977.

Any other land assigned in any another manner and without a condition of

non-alienation would not fall within the four corners of the Act, 1977.

14. It may also be noted that a Learned Single Judge of the erstwhile

High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in the case of Shaik Abdul Kalam Azad

& Ors Vs. A. Babu & Ors3 had taken a similar view.