Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
A. Venkatesan And Ors. vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 11 February, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(2)ALD422, 2004(3)ALT333, 2004 A I H C 1377, (2004) 2 ANDHLD 422 (2004) 3 ANDH LT 333, (2004) 3 ANDH LT 333
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
ORDER L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The 1st petitioner had participated in the freedom struggle and is said to have undergone six months of imprisonment under the British Government, on that account. After independence, he was treated as a political sufferer. The District Collector, Chittoor, issued proceedings dated 23-12-1949 directing the then Tahsildar, Chandragiri, to assign an extent of Ac.10-20 cents of land in Sy.No. 498 of Avilala Village, Chandragiri Taluq. The Tahsildar complied with the same and issued 'D' form patta in favour of the 1st petitioner on 30-12-1949 in respect of the said land. The 1st petitioner was also presented "Tamra Patra" on 24-3-1974 in recognition of his participation in the freedom struggle.
2. A general condition used to be incorporated in the 'D' form pattas issued to political sufferers that the land assigned to them are heritable but not alienable. Representations were made by the freedom fighters to the effect that for variety of reasons they are not able to cultivate the lands assigned to them and unless they are permitted to alienate the lands, the very purpose of assignment is likely to be -defeated. Acting on these representations, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O. Ms. No. 1743 dated 28-8-1959, directing that it shall be competent for the political sufferers to sell away the lands assigned to them.
3. The 1st petitioner retained the land till 1994. On account of his old age and family requirements, he sold the land in favour of M/s.Balaji Sites and Services, the 2nd petitioner herein, through sale deeds dated 19-5-1995 and 20-5-1995. After the purchase, the petitioners approached the Tirupati Urban Development Authority and enquired about the procedure to develop the land. They were informed that a 'No Objection Certificate' is required from the revenue authorities, as a condition precedent for grant of any permission to develop the land. In that view of the matter, they have approached the MRO, Tirupati Rural Mandal, the 3rd respondent, with a request to issue 'No Objection Certificate'. The 3rd respondent, in turn, had referred the matter to the District Collector, the 2nd respondent. When the matter was pending with Respondents 1 and 2, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 185 dated 11-3-1997 revising the orders contained in G.O. Ms. No. 1743 dated 28-8-1959. G.O. Ms. No. 185 was further amended through G.O. Ms. No. 917 dated 31-10-1997. In that view of the matter, the 2nd respondent sought clarification, through his letter dated 18-1-1998, from the Commissioner of Land Revenue as to whether the revised orders issued in G.O. Ms. Nos. 185 dated 11-3-1997 and 917 dated 31-10-1997 appty to the land in question. On receipt of this letter, the Commissioner of Land Revenue, the 2nd respondent, addressed letter dated 6-2-1998 to the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, the 1st respondent herein. The 1st respondent issued Memo dated 19-12-2000 taking the view that the sale between Petitioners 1 and 2 in respect of the said land is illegal and directed that action be initiated to cancel the sale and to restore the land to the Government. This Memo is challenged in this writ petition.
4. The petitioners contend that the impugned Memo was issued on the presumption that G.O. Ms. No. 185 dated 11-3-1997 and G.O. Ms. No. 917 dated 31-10-1997 apply to the land in question, whereas the sale took place in the year 1995. They contend that except stating that the sale is illegal, the 1st respondent has not stated any reason whatever, as to how the sale is illegal and the direction for resumption of the land cannot be sustained in law.
5. On behalf of the respondents, the Joint Secretary to Government had filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated inter alia that the purport of G.O. Ms. No. 1743 dated 28-8-1954 is that though the prohibition to alienate the assigned lands is lifted, the assignees are under obligation to obtain permission of the Government before such alienation. It is stated that since no such permission was obtained, alienation in favour of the 2nd petitioner is invalid. It is further stated that a condition was incorporated in 10(1) account that the land can be enjoyed, but cannot be alienated, and in that view of the matter, the transfer is illegal. The respondents also contend that the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 917 dated 31-10-1997 apply to the present transaction also.
6. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Assignment.
7. The 1st petitioner was assigned an extent of Ac.10-20 cents in Survey No. 498 as a reward for his participation in the freedom struggle. 'D' Form patta was issued to him in respect of the said land by the then Tahsildar, Chandragiri. Number of freedom fighters in various parts of the State were also assigned lands as a reward for their participation in the struggle. In most of the cases, the conditions prohibiting alienation of the assigned land, which were incorporated in ordinary assignments, were also included. Such clauses restricted the freedom of the assignees to enjoy the property. On the representation of the political sufferers, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 1743 dated 28-8-1959. After referring to the various conditions that are generally incorporated in the orders of assignments, particularly, those prohibiting alienation, the Government observed in the said G.O., as under:
"2. The Government have also decided that the political sufferers may be permitted to sell away the lands assigned to them without imposing any conditions.
3. The Board of Revenue is requested to submit for approval by Government necessary amendments to the 'D' form patta to be issued to political sufferers in respect of romperu lands, other project affected lands and lands affected by any projects in the light of the above decision."
From this it is clear that the restriction on alienations of the lands assigned to the political sufferers stood deleted, without any conditions. The orders contained in this G.O., were varied to certain extent in G.O. Ms. No. 185 dated 11-3-1997. The salient features of G.O. Ms. No. 185 are:
(a) Agricultural lands in the districts of Visakhapatnam, Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy cannot be assigned to freedom fighters;
(b) Assignment of land for agricultural purpose shall be considered wherever such lands are not required for public purpose or house sites;
(c) Assignment of house sites will be made to individual freedom fighters and not to society of freedom fighters. The house sites pattas are inheritable but not alienable.
(d) The maximum extent of house sites that can be assigned is 300 sq.yards and Telangana, Andhra and Rayalaseema regions are to be taken as Units for the purpose of granting house sites; and
(e) Transfer of names of freedom fighters from their respective districts to other districts like Visakhapatnam, Ranga Reddy and other urban areas shall be banned.
G.O. Ms. No. 185 dated 11-3-1997 was further amended through G.O.Ms.No. 917 dated 31-10-1997. These orders did not bring about any change as regards the alienability of the agricultural lands, which were already assigned to political sufferers. The ban imposed under these G.Os., is on alienation of house sites that may be assigned and nothing is said about the lands that are already assigned. At any rate, the transfer of the land in question between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner took place much before these G.Os., came to be issued. Hence, it cannot be said that the transfer between Petitioners 1 and 2 is in any way hit by G.O. Ms. No. 185 dated 11-3-1997, as amended.
8. Learned Government Pleader for Assignment submits that even under G.O. Ms. No. 1743 dated 28-8-1959, it was incumbent on the freedom fighters to obtain permission of the competent authority before alienating the land. Two aspects need to be considered in this regard. Firstly, G.O. Ms. No. 1743 would have applied only to those assignments where clauses prohibiting alienations are incorporated. In the case of the 1st petitioner, the clause as regards prohibition against alienations read as under:
"The land shall not be alienated to any person who is neither a British citizen nor an Indian citizen except with the permission of the Government."
A reading of the clause extracted above discloses that the prohibition was against alienation in favour of persons who were neither British nor Indian citizens. Even the alienation in favour of such persons was permissible with the permission of the Government. In other words, alienation in favour of a British or an Indian citizen without permission of the Government was not prohibited. Therefore, it cannot be said that G.O. Ms. No. 1743 had the effect of relieving any rigor against the 1st petitioner, when the original assignment itself did not prohibit alienation in favour of Indian citizens. It cannot be said that the transfer in favour of the 2nd petitioner is illegal in any manner. With the issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 1743, whatever restrictions existed stood removed. Secondly, the contention of the learned Government Pleader for the respondents that it was necessary for the assignees to obtain permission of the Government even after issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 1743 does not get support from the contents of the said G.O., or for that matter, any other orders.
9. The Government was approached through an administrative hierarchy to clarify as to what would be the impact of G.O. Ms. Nos. 185 and 917 on the alienation by the 1st petitioner in favour of the 2nd petitioner. Instead of clarifying that, the 1st respondent had straightaway directed the 2nd respondent to cancel the sale deed and to restore the land to the Government. Such a course of action is totally impermissible. The 1st respondent has chosen to record findings and to issue orders detrimental to the interests of the petitioners, without hearing them. The directions contained in the impugned order are violative of principles of natural justice, apart from being contrary to the various Government Orders referred to above.
10. Hence, the impugned Memo is set aside and the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs.