Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
D. Gangadhar And Anr. vs Ch. Chakkara Reddy And Anr. on 5 July, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1996(1)ALT672, 1996 A I H C 1409, (1996) 1 ANDHLD 372 (1996) 1 ANDH LT 672, (1996) 1 ANDH LT 672
Author: B. Subhashan Reddy
Bench: B. Subhashan Reddy
JUDGMENT N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.
1. This Writ Appeal raises a question regarding the scope and ambit of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (A.P.Act.No. 9 of 1977), hereinafter referred to as "the Act". One Mr. Dasari Obulesu was assigned with government land of Ac.4-16 cents in S.No. 524-2 situated at Nyamaddala Village of Anantapur District on 21-10-1955. He died later. On the ground of violation of conditions of grant, the same was resumed by the government on 6-7-1982, and was re-assigned to the 1st respondent. In the year 1988, an application was filed by the widow of late Dasari Obulesu, namely, Smt. Dasari Anjinamma, that the assignment was made in favour of her husband; that after his death, she succeeded to his rights; that when she sought for mutation of her name in the revenue records, she came to know that the land was resumed, but nevertheless, the land had been in her possession and that herself and her sons and daughters being heirs are entitled for the said properties and that the daughters having been married, the sons are living with her and requested for the transfer of the said land in her favour duly cancelling the subsequent assignment made in favour of the 1st respondent. The same was entertained by the 2nd respondent herein i.e. the Mandal Revenue Officer of Chennekothapalli Mandal and after making enquiry, by his orders dated 24-3-1989 passed in R.Dis.755 /88, he set aside the resumption made in favour of the 1st respondent on the ground that the said resumption was made without serving a notice on the earlier assignee or his heirs and that the 1st respondent is not resident of Nyamaddala Village or its hamlets. So holding, he sought to restore the land to the heirs of late Dasari Obulesu purporting to be under Section 4(b) of the Act.
2. The same was challenged by the 1st respondent by filing W.P.No. 13817 of 1989 and a learned single Judge of this court had accepted the contentions of the 1st respondent that not only the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent was without notice to him, but also was without jurisdiction, as being outside the scope and purview of the Act and consequently, the impugned order was set aside, hence, this appeal.
3. Mr. G. Krishna Murthy., the learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contends that the order of the learned single judge is erroneous; that the learned single judge ought to have seen that the original assignment made in favour of late Mr. Dasari Obulesu in the year 1955 was not liable to be cancelled; that the resumption by the State in the year 1982 was without notice to either Dasari Obulesu or his heirs and as such, the order of the learned single Judge should be set aside. Of course, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent supports the argument of Mr. G. Krishna Murthy. But, Mr. O. Manohar Reddy, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent defends the order of the learned single Judge on the ground that correct scrutiny of the order passed by the 2nd respondent, as also the Act, was made by the learned single judge and that there is no error committed in setting aside the orders of the 2nd respondent.
4. Assignments were being made by the State to the landless poor persons. It is a beneficial legislation. In Andhra area, the same are governed by Board's Standing Orders while in Telengana area, they are governed by the rules framed under the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. Nevertheless, the conditions of grant of the government land are same. The lands are not alienable, but heritable, Several other conditions like bringing the land under cultivation within three years of the grant etc. have been imposed. A clause to the effect that the land will be resumed for the violation of the conditions of the grant has been incorporated in every assignment. Nevertheless, the conditions of the grant were visited in breach with impunity. The violation of one kind i.e. alienation of the assigned land, in spite of the express prohibition, was rampant and the very purpose of the beneficial provision i.e. giving away the land of the State with an avowed object of providing livelihood to landless poor persons, was being frustrated. While violation of other conditions was to be dealt with by the authorities as contemplated under the rules governing thereto vis-a-vis the conditions of the grant, the violation of condition of alienation was taken up by the legislature itself by enacting the law i.e. Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 which is' an Act to prohibit the transfer of certain lands assigned to landless poor persons in Andhra Pradesh'. Admittedly, the 1st respondent after re-assignment of land in his favour did not alienate the land and that being not the allegation and the allegation being that assignment made in his favour in the year 1982 was illegal, and the same should be set aside, cannot be a matter for adjudication under the said Act. Section 3 is the main Section, for violation of which Section 4 is invoked. Under Section 3, where before or after the commencement of the Act, any land has been assigned by the Government to a landless poor person for purpose of cultivation or as a house site, the same shall not be transferred and any such transfer shall be deemed to be null and void. There was controversy as to whether this was prospective or retrospective, but the controversy has been set at rest by a Full Bench of this Court by holding mat the Act is retrospective in operation and that it covers the transfer of the lands assigned not only prior to the Act, but also later. If there is violation of Section 3 i.e. alienation of the assigned land, then only Section 4 comes into operation, which empowers the revenue authority not below the rank of Mandal Revenue Officer to take possession of the assigned land after evicting the person in possession and restore the same to the original assignee or his heirs. The above Act cannot be pressed into service for any other adjudication or relief excepting for the violation of condition of alienation and as such, the 2nd respondent has grossly erred in entertaining the application filed by the heirs of late Dasari Obulesu and also ordering the same. What steps the heirs of late Dasari Obulesu take for reddressal of their grievances is a question apart, as we are only concerned with the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent to invoke the provisions of A.P.Act.No. 9 of 1977, which he had wrongly usurped and which has been properly set at naught by the learned single Judge. We are in respectful agreement with the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge and consequently, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. We make no order as to costs.