Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Nareddi Rahi Reddy vs District Collector And Ors. on 15 November, 2007
JUDGMENT P.S. Narayana, J.
1. Heard Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the appellant and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration.
2. This Second Appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 109 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsiff, Ibrahimpatnam and A.S. No. 70 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Saroornagar.
3. The appellant herein-plaintiff filed the said suit praying for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the appellant-plaintiff in relation to an extent of Ac.5-27 gts out of Ac.7-27 gts in Survey No. 79/25 in Khanapur village, Ranga Reddy District. The court of first instance in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the issues, recorded the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and DWs 1 to 3, marked Exs.A.1 to A.13 and Exs.B.1 to B.15, came to the conclusion that the suit cannot be maintained in the light of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act 9 of 1977) (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) and dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the matter was carried by way of appeal-A.S. No. 70 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Saroornagar and the appellate court having framed the point for consideration at Para 7 and having appreciated the facts and circumstances, recorded certain findings at Paras 8,9,10,11,12 and 13 and ultimately dismissed the appeal with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is preferred.
4. At the outset, it may be stated that the appeal is abated as against respondents 3 and 8.
5. On 14-6-1999, this Court made the following order:
Admit. The substantial question that arises for consideration is whether the suit filed by purchaser and assignee is maintainable as against any person in view of Section 8 of the Act.
6. The learned Counsel representing appellant-plaintiff had also pointed out to grounds 3, 4 and 5 of memorandum of the grounds of Second Appeal and would maintain that the said substantial questions of law also may have to be considered in the facts and circumstances of the case. The said substantial questions of law are as hereunder:
iii. Whether the courts can give finding without there being any issue and without there being any finding, with regard to applicability of provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands ( Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and set aside the registered sale deed of the plaintiff, Ex. B.13 in the plaintiff suit for simple injunction by giving adverse finding.
iv. Whether a person who is in possession of lands irrespective of nature is entitled to protect his possession by way of filing civil suit for injunction.
v. Whether the prohibition of transfer of assigned lands relating to non- alienability is applicable to the assignment made without the said condition prior to the G.O.Ms. No. 1406 in the absence of condition of non-alienability and whether the same attracts within the mischief of the Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.
7. Further submissions were made relating to the scope and ambit of the Act and the applicability of the provisions of the Act to the transaction in the question and reliance was placed on certain decisions. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration had drawn the attention of this Court to the different provisions of the Act in general and Sections 3 and 8 of the Act in particular and would maintain that the provisions made prior to the commencement of the Act would fall within the purview of the Act and hence such transactions also are null and void. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration also had pointed out to G.O.Ms. No. 1406 Revenue dated 25-7-1958 and explained applicability of the Laoni Rules,1950 and would maintain that in the light of the clear findings recorded by the appellate court at Para 13, the judgment of the appellate court cannot be found fault. Even otherwise in view of the fact concurrent findings had been recorded by both the court of first instance and also the appellate court, this Court to be sole in disturbing such findings in a Second Appeal.
8. Heard the counsel and perused the records.
9. The substantial questions of law, which had been pointed out by the learned Counsel representing the appellant in addition to the substantial question of law on the strength of which Second Appeal had been admitted, also had been specified supra. The parties hereinafter for the purpose of convenience would be referred to as 'plaintiff' and 'defendants' as shown in O.S. No. 109 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsiff, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff purchased Ac.7. 27 gts. in Survey No. 79/25 from 3rd defendant on 20-05-1967 under an oral agreement of sale and subsequently obtained registered sale deed on 24-9-1968. The Tahasildar, Ibrahimpatnam, issued sale certificate under Section 5B of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act in file No. B8/8238/69 dated 18-2-1970. His name had been recorded as pattedar in the Revenue Records. He had been in possession and enjoyment of the same since the date of purchase. In the year 1987 he sold Ac.2-00 out of Ac.7.27 gts. to Pandi Pochamma and executed a registered sale deed. Defendants 3 to 8 have lost their interest from the date on which the 3rd rd defendant sold the land to him. Defendants 1 and 2 have nothing to do with the suit land since it is a patta land. The 2nd defendant has issued notice under Rule 3 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 1977 alleging that the suit land is a Government land and the plaintiff is in unauthorized possession of the same. The plaintiff sent suitable reply to the said notice. The 2nd defendant having issued a certificate on 18- 2-1989 in file No. B/452/89 that the suit land is a patta land of the plaintiff, cannot say that it is a Government land. The plaintiff also mortgaged the suit land to Agricultural Development Bank and obtained loan. The defendants 2 to 8 at the instigation of 1 and 2, are trying to occupy the suit land alleging that it is a Government land and they are landless poor. On 30-08-1990, the defendants 2 to 8 came to suit land with ploughs and tried to spoil the standing crops, but their attempts were foiled by the plaintiff due to his timely intervention. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land admeasuring Ac.5-27gts in S. No. 79/25."
10. The third defendant filed a written statement and D.4 to D.8 adopted the same by filing a memo. D.1 and D.2 did not choose to contest the matter. It was pleaded in the written statement that Survey No. 75 of Khanapur village is a Government land and in the year 1950, the said land was assigned to landless poor of Khanapur village. This defendant was assigned Ac.7-27 gts in Survey No. 79/25. Since the date of assignment he and members of his family are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit land without any interruption. The plaintiff is a rich and influenced landlord of Khanapur village and he fabricated false documents and managed to enter his name in to Revenue Records without the knowledge of this defendant. This defendant never sold any land to the plaintiff and he is not aware of any registered document and Section 16(B) proceedings. This defendant on coming to know of the fraud played by the plaintiff complained to District Collector, R.R.District. On the basis of the complaint, Revenue Authorities initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Act.
11. The court of first instance framed the following issues:
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to perpetual injunction as prayed?
ii. To what relief?
12. On behalf of the appellant as plaintiff, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.15 were marked.
13. The court of first instance after recording reasons dismissed the suit. The appellate court at Para 7 framed the following point for consideration:
Whether the appellant-plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction against the defendants?
14. Reasons had been recorded commencing from Paras 8 to 13. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Dharma Reddy v. Sub-Collector, Bodhan, Nizamabad and ultimately dismissed the appeal.
15. The Act 9 of 1977 is an Act to prohibit transfers of certain lands assigned to landless poor persons in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Section 2 of the Act deals with the definitions. Section 2(1) of the Act defines assigned land. Section 3 of the Act dealing with prohibition of transfer of assigned lands reads as hereunder:
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 purpose of cultivation or as a house-site then, notwithstanding to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force or in the deed to 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 provision 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 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.
16. Section 8 of the Act dealing with protection of action taken, reads as hereunder:
(1) No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person, officer or authority for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of Act or any rules made thereunder.
(2) No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Government for any damage caused or likely to be caused or for any injury suffered or likely to be suffered, by virtue of any provision of this Act, or for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act, or any rules made thereunder.
17. In Dharma Reddy v. Sub-Collector, Bodhan, Nizamabad (supra), the full bench of this Court while dealing with Section 3(1) of the Act held that Section 3(1) not only prohibits transfer of the assigned lands on or after the commencement of the Act, but also declares retrospectively that all transfers of such assigned land which took place prior to the 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.
18. Strong reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court in G.V.K. Rama Rao and Anr. v. Bakelite Hylam Employees Co-op. House Building Society, Hyderabad wherein it was held that the land assigned under Laoni Rules of 1950 in 1953 and there is no prohibition for transfer of land assigned in 1953 under the said rules and condition of non-alienability of assigned land enforced only in 1958 under G.O.Ms. No. 1406. The land assigned without a condition of non-alienability does not fall within the mischief of Section 3 of the Act and does not come within the definition of 'assigned land' under Section 2(1) of the Act.
19. Ex.A.13 is the registered sale deed dated 24-09-1968. The appellate court in the context of the Laoni Rules of 1950 and applicability of the clause relating to non-alienability, in fact, observed in Para 13. " In the Laoni Rules, 1950 there was no rule imposing restriction upon the assignee from transferring or alienating the assigned land and the same has been introduced in the revised assignment policy. The relevant Rule in G.O.Ms. No. 1406, Revenue, dated 25-7-1958 is in the following terms:
VI. Terms and conditions of assignment:
(i) xxx xxx xxx:
(ii) Lands assigned shall be heritable but not alienable: PW.1 claims that he purchased the land on the agreement of sale dated 20-05-1967 and subsequently obtained Ex.A.13 registered sale deed dated 24-09-1968. By the date of agreement of sale the revised Laoni Rules were in force and there was restriction of alienation under the Rules. Therefore, the suit schedule lands were non-alienable lands as on the date of alleged agreement of sale under the Laoni Rules then in force.
20. On a careful scrutiny of Section 8 of the Act, Sub-section 1 and Sub-section 2 would cover different categories of cases and in the light of clear language employed in Sub-section 1 of the Act and also in the light of the decision of the Full Bench referred to supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by both the court of first instance and the appellate court cannot be found fault. Accordingly, the said findings are hereby confirmed and the Second Appeal shall stand dismissed. But in the peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court makes no order as to costs.