Microsoft Word - wp_27904

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.27904 OF 2012

ORDER:

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.

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.

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 authorities,

contrary to the said established procedure and the mandate of law,

have put neither the original assignees nor the purchaser of the

land on notice, but have only put the petitioner on notice, who is

the second purchaser of the land. Thus, the impugned

proceedings are vitiated under law and therefore, liable to be set

aside. Furthermore, the first sale of the subject land was in the

year 1970 and the initiation of the impugned proceedings was in

the year 1997, i.e. there is inordinate delay of 27 years in initiating

the impugned proceedings. Therefore, according to the learned

Senior Counsel, even though the Act does not stipulate any period

of limitation, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this

Court, the authorities are under obligation to initiate necessary

action within a “reasonable time”. That depending on the facts

and circumstances of the case, this Court has held that any action

contemplated after a lapse of even three years as unreasonable and

has proceeded to set aside the orders passed by the authorities

after lapse of more than a decade or so. But, in this particular

case, the impugned proceedings are initiated after a lapse of more

than 27 years and the orders were passed after a lapse of 35 years

and the said abnormal delay cannot be countenanced. The

learned Senior Counsel has contended that the petitioner is a bona

fide purchaser, as he has purchased the subject land only after

verifying the revenue records as well as the sale deed executed in

favour of the vendors of the petitioner. Inasmuch as the revenue

records reflect that the subject land is patta land, the petitioner

had purchased the same under bona fide belief that the same is

patta land. Therefore, for the lapse on the part of the revenue

authorities, the petitioner cannot be punished. Lastly, the learned

Senior Counsel has contended that if the impugned proceedings

are allowed to stand, the same will not only result in depriving the

petitioner of his property purchased under the bona fide belief of it

being patta land, but also in violation of the right to property

guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which

mandates that no citizen can be deprived of the property except

due process established by law. Therefore, the learned Senior

Counsel has prayed to set aside the impugned proceedings of the

primary authority and the two confirmatory orders of the appellate

and the revisional authority.

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for

Revenue, has contended that the petitioner, knowing fully aware of

the nature of the land as “assigned land”, had purchased the

same; that as per the provisions of the Act, irrespective of the fact

whether or not the petitioner is having the knowledge of the land

as assigned one, the Act will apply and there is no bar/restriction

under the Act which stipulates that the action shall be initiated

only against the original assignee and the immediate purchaser.

Even though the petitioner is a second purchaser, he will

automatically step into the shoes of his vendor, and therefore, he is

also equally liable for eviction from the assigned land. Even if

there is a procedural lapse, the same cannot be taken

advantage by the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader has

also argued that if any orders are passed in favour of the

petitioner, the same will amount to allowing the illegality for

perpetuity. The principles of natural justice were followed, the

petitioner was put on notice and only after affording due

opportunity of hearing, the impugned orders were passed. In

order to claim the benefit under the Act, the petitioner is neither a

bona fide purchaser nor a landless poor person, as he had

purchased more than Ac.10.00 guntas of land. Besides that, the

family of the petitioner is having lands in the very same village.

Therefore, the petitioner does not fit into the exemption granted

under the provisions of the Act, and deserves no leniency from this

Court, and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Lastly, the

learned Government Pleader has argued that before purchasing the

subject land, the petitioner ought to have taken the burden of

verifying the revenue records to ascertain the nature of land and

whether his vendor is having valid title or not over the subject

land. That the sale of assigned land is prohibited under the Act

and any transaction of sale is deemed as null and void and is non

est in the eye of law. That there is no period of limitation

prescribed under the Act and whenever any contravention of the

provisions of the Act come to the notice of the authorities, they will

initiate action against the purchaser and also the vendor. That in

this particular case, the whereabouts of the vendors is not known

as they have left the village and therefore, it was not possible to

serve the notice on them. The petitioner cannot plead that action

has to be taken only against the original assignees and the

subsequent purchaser and not the second purchaser. It has

further been submitted that even if the petitioner was not aware

about the fact of the property being assigned land, the principle of

caveat emptor ('Buyer Beware') will apply and he cannot claim to be

a bona fide purchaser and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the

writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Pleader for Revenue. Perused the material available

on record.

In order to appreciate the contentions advanced by both the

counsel, it is necessary to extract the provisions of Sections 2 and

3 of the Act.

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 construed accordingly:

(2) xxx

(3) "landless poor person" means a person who owns an extent of land

not more than 1.011715 hectares (two and half acres) of wet land or

2.023430 hectares (five acres) of dry land or such other extent of land

as has been or may be specified by the Government in this behalf;

from time to time and who has no other means of livelihood:

Explanation:- For the purposes of computing the extent of land under

this clause, 0.404686 hectares (one acre) of wet land shall be equal to

0.809372 hectares (two acres) of dry land;

(4) xxx

(5) xxx

(6) "transfer" means any sale, gift, exchange, mortgage with or without

possession, lease or any other transaction with assigned lands, not

being a testamentary disposition and includes a charge on such

property or a contract relating to assigned lands in respect of such

sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease or other transaction.

Sec. 3 Prohibition of transfer of assigned lands:-

(1) Where before or after the commencement of this Act any land has

been assigned by the Government to a landless poor person for

purposes of cultivation or as a house-site then, notwithstanding

anything to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force or

in the deed of transfer or other document relating to such land, it shall

not be transferred and shall be deemed never to have been

transferred; and accordingly no right or title in such assigned land

shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer.

(2) No landless poor person shall transfer any assigned land, and no

person shall acquire any assigned land, either by purchase, gift,

lease, mortgage, exchange or otherwise.

(3) Any transfer or acquisition made in contravention of the provisions

of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be deemed to be null and

void.

(4) The provisions of this section shall apply to any transaction of the

nature referred to in sub-section (2) in execution of a decree or order of

a civil Court or of any award or order of any other authority.

(5) Nothing in this section shall apply to an assigned land which was

purchased by a landless poor person in good faith and for valuable

consideration from the original assignee or his transferee prior to the

commencement of this Act and which is in the possession of such

person for purposes of cultivation or as a house -site on the date of

such commencement.

Section 4 of the Act speaks of the consequences of breach of

provisions of Section 3, whereby the authorities can take

possession of the assigned land after evicting the person in

possession and can reassign the said resumed land to the

transferee, provided he has purchased the land in good faith and

for valuable consideration on or before 29.01.2007, subject to the

condition that he/she is landless poor person, and is in occupation

of the land by using the said land for agriculture or as house site,

as on the date of taking possession by eviction.

Admittedly, in the case on hand, neither the facts nor the

provisions of the law are disputed. The petitioner has purchased

the land in 1981 from his vendors, who in turn, had purchased the

same from the original assignees of the land in the year 1961. A

Full Bench of this Court in Dharma Reddy v. Sub-Collector,

Bodhan

has categorically held that the provisions of this Act are

applicable retrospectively, and any contravention of the provisions

of the Act by a person, after G.O.Ms. No. 1142-Rev, dated

18.06.1954 would be liable for consequences under the provisions

of the Act. Even though the learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner has argued that the procedure contemplated under the

Act was violated by the authorities, a reading of the averments of

the counter would show that the original assignees as well as the

first purchasers were not traceable as they had already sold the

land and left the village. The provisions of Section 4 of the Act,

empowers the authorities to put on notice the person, who has

1987 (1) ALT 124 (F.B.)

purchased the land in contravention of the provisions of the Act

and for taking necessary action. It is, therefore, clear from the

reading of the provisions of the Act that there is no necessity to

either put the original assignee, or the subsequent purchaser on

notice. But, what all the law mandates is that the “person in

possession” of the assigned land is required to be put on notice. It

is not the case of the petitioner herein that he was not put on

notice or he was not given an opportunity of hearing. It is the

specific stand of the learned Senior Counsel that neither the

original assignees of the land nor the first purchasers were put on

notice and that the petitioner being the second purchaser cannot

be subjected to the provisions of the Act. With due respect to the

learned Senior Counsel, the said argument does not hold water in

view of the fact that the 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 this connection, the

learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner himself

has purchased more than Ac.10.00 guntas of land and besides

that, his family is having more than Ac.5.00 guntas of land.

Therefore, the petitioner cannot be termed as a ‘landless poor

person’ in order to extend the benefit provided under the Act. Even

if the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner

has purchased the assigned land in good faith and bona fide belief,

is accepted, still he does not get the exemption, as he is not a

‘landless poor person’. The other contention of the learned Senior

Counsel that, the provisions of the Act have to be applied within a

reasonable period, also lacks merit, as there is no limitation period

prescribed under the Act. The learned counsel has relied on the

two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Government of

A.P. and Others v. Gudepu Sailoo and Others

and in Collector

v. P. Mangamma and Others

to buttress his arguments that the

action contemplated under the Act has to be within reasonable

time and not after decades. The judgments relied by the learned

Senior Counsel emanated from the then Hon’ble High Court of A.P.

under the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and

Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land

Revenue Act, 1317-Fasli. The Court, while interpreting Section

50-B of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands

Act, 1950 and Section 166-B of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land

Revenue Act, 1317-Fasli, has held that the words “any time” used

in the Section has to be interpreted as “within reasonable time”.

However, if the same analogy is applied to interpret that the action

under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of

Transfers) Act, 1977 can only be initiated within a reasonable time,

the said contention is not only against the provisions of the Andhra

Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, but

the very purport of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands

(Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 will be defeated. The Act

contemplates action against the person in possession of the land

and not the original assignee. It is pertinent to extract Section 4(5)

of the Act.

(2000) 4 SCC 625

(2003) 4 SCC 488

“4. Consequences of breach of provisions of Section 3:--

(1) xxx

(2) xxx

(3) xxx

(4) xxx

(5) For the purposes of this section, 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 proved, that there is

a contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 3.”

Section 7 - Penalty:-

(1) Whoever acquires any assigned land in contravention of the

provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 shall be punished with

imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which

may extend to two thousand rupees or with both.

[Provided that any person who has voluntarily disclosed and

surrendered the assigned land in his possession or discloses and

surrenders the assigned land in his possession within 90 days

from the commencement of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands

(Prohibition of Transfers) (Amendment) Act, 2007 shall be exempted

from Prosecution.]

(2) Whoever opposes or impedes the District Collector or any person

authorised, in taking possession of any assigned land under this

Act shall be punished with imprisonment which any extend to six

months or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or

with both;

[(2A) Any Officer, violating the provisions under sub-sections (1)

and (2) of Section 5 shall be punished with simple imprisonment

which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to

ten thousand rupees or with both.]

(3) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under

this section, except with the previous sanction of the District

Collector.

Even the issuance of notice under Form-I is to the person

who is in occupation of assigned land and not to the original

assignee of the land. The Act does not contemplate that any

action, in regard to resumption of assigned land, should be taken

within a specified time. Therefore, 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. In other words, the Act contemplates taking

action at any point of time soon after it comes to the knowledge of

the officials about the contravention of the provisions of the

Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act,

1977. Moreover, this Court is primarily concerned as to whether

the procedure prescribed under the Act has been followed or not,

but not the decision itself. As seen from the record, the authorities

have followed the procedure contemplated under the Act and in

furtherance of the same, put the petitioner on notice, gave him

ample opportunity of hearing and then passed the impugned order.

This Court does not find any infirmity, illegality or perversity in the

impugned orders warranting interference of this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the forgoing reasons,

this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition and

the same is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________

A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J

Date :08-03-2021

Tsr

Note:- L.R. Copy to be marked.