Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Mandlappa @ Mandla Giriappa vs Mandal Revenue Officer And Anr. on 20 August, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997(3)ALT162
ORDER Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.
1. This writ petition raises an important question of law: "Whether the transfer of assigned land by the petitioner, who perfected his title by adverse possession by the date of commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Joint Collector under the Act.
2. The facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.7-39 cents of land in S. No. 443-1 of Kodihalli village, Agali Mandal, Anantapur district vide a registered sale deed dated 13-9-1944 from the original assignee, Fareed Sab. Since the date of purchase, the petitioner's father and after his death, the petitioner are in the possession of the land. While so, the second respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 20th September, 1988, to the original assignee, directing him to appear on 6-10-1988 and offer his explanation as to why the assignment made to him in S. No. 433-1 of Kodihalli village should not be cancelled for violating the conditions of D-Form patta. A copy of the said notice was also marked to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that he is residing in a village which is adjacent to the land in question and that his father purchased the said land in good faith for a valuable consideration. The Joint Collector, after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and after conducting enquiry held that the original assignee - Fareed Sab alienated the land to the father of the petitioner, who is residing in Karanataka State and that the land was not brought under cultivation within three years from the date of assignment. As the conditions of D-Form patta were violated, the Joint Collector passed an order of eviction against the petitioner on 19-5-1989. This order was not communicated to the petitioner and the M.R.O. the first respondent initiated proceedings to assign the land to third parties. Therefore, the petitioner filed this writ petition questioning the action of the respondents in evicting the petitioner. However, the order passed by the Joint Collector on 7-10-1988 was communicated to the petitioner on 18-9-1989.
3. The petitioner's Counsel firstly contended that the Joint Collector has no jurisdiction to initiate the resumption proceedings under the Board Standing Orders as the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, (for short 'the A.P. Act 9 of 1977') governs the said aspect and that therefore the impugned order is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
4. The facts of the case show that the show-cause notice was issued to the original assignee to show-cause as to why the assignment should not be cancelled for not bringing the land under cultivation. The copy of show-cause notice was marked to the petitioner, who filed the explanation. After considering the explanation of the petitioner, the second respondent passed the order of resumption of the land. The object of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 is to assign Government waste lands to the landless poor persons. The rules regarding assignment of land and the conditions of 'D' Form pattas prohibit alienation of lands assigned to landless poor and provide for its resumption as well as reassignment to eligible persons. However, past experience has shown that substantial extents of lands assigned to landless poor persons have been actually alienated and are in possession of well-to-do persons. As the existing rules do not provide for punishment of persons who have purchased such lands, efforts made for assigning large extents of lands to landless poor persons are going waste. With a view to enforce the object of the Act more effectively, it is considered that a protective legislation is necessary prescribing punishment against persons who have purchased assigned lands on the model of legislation existing in regard to the Scheduled Tribes in the scheduled areas of Andhra Pradesh, which prohibits alienation of lands and provides for restoration of such lands to the assignees. Therefore, to curb the alienations of assigned lands by the assignees to other persons and again becoming landless poor persons, the A.P. Act 9 of 1977 was passed to ameliorate the economic conditions of the weaker sections as envisaged under Article 46 of the Constitution. Section 2 of the Act defines the "assigned land" and Clause (6) of Section 2 defines "transfers". Section 3 prohibits transfer of assigned lands and declares any transfer as null and void. Section 4 provides for the consequences of breach of provisions of Section 3, i.e., to take action for resumption of land and restore the same to landless poor persons. Section 5 prohibits registration of assigned lands. Section 7 provides for penalty and Section 9 empowers the Government to make rules. The A.P. Act 9 of 1977 is a self-contained Act and the Act applies to assignments made both prior to and after the commencement of the Act as has been held by a Division Bench of this Court. Thus, where any assignee has violated any conditions of assignment, the authority prescribed under the Act has got jurisdiction to take action for resumption of the land. Therefore, when the A.P. Act 9 of 1977 has provided the entire machinery for cancellation of alienations made prior or after the commencement of the Act, the Joint Collector cannot exercise powers under the Board Standing Order and the impugned order of the Joint Collector is without jurisdiction.
5. It is next contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that by the date of commencement of the A.P. Act 9 of 1977, the petitioner has perfected his title, being in possession of land for more than 30 years and the State Government has no power to take any action for violation of the conditions of D-Form patta under the Act or under the Board Standing Orders.
6. The facts stated supra show that the father of the petitioner has purchased the land in question on 13-9-1944, which is not disputed. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is clearly admitted that from the date of sale, the land was in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's father and thereafter the petitioner. The A.P. Act 9 of 1977 came into force on 21st January, 1977. By the date of commencement of the A.P. Act 9 of 1977, the petitioner has been in possession for over 34 years. A person to get title by adverse possession has to prove that he is in possession of the land for more than 30 years. In the present case there is no dispute that earlier to the petitioner, his father and thereafter the petitioner were in continuous possession since the date of purchase i.e., 13-9-1944. When once the petitioner is in possession of the land for more than 30 years prior to commencement of the Act, he has perfected his title by adverse possession against the Government. This view of ours is supported by a decision of the Supreme Court in Sri Manchegowda v. State of Karnataka . In that case the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act (2 of 1979) and Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act were challenged as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Act. In Para 24 of the judgment the Supreme Court held:
"Transferees of granted lands having a perfected and not a viodable title at the commencement of the Act must be held to be outside the pale of the provisions of the Act. Section 4 of the Act must be so construed as not to have the effect of rendering void the title of any transferee which was not viodable at the date of the commencement of the Act."
7. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Further in a later case, Sunkara Rajyalakshmi and Ors. v. State of Karnataka 1985 (1) SCALE 445, it was clarified that the period of limitation which has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether the title has been perfected by prescription is that which runs against the State Government and therefore it would be 30 years and not 12 years. In view of the principle laid down in the above Supreme Court judgment, the petitioner has perfected title by the date of commencement of the Act by being in continuous possession for over 34 years. Therefore, the transferee of assigned lands, who has perfected title by the date of commencement of the Act, has to be held to be outside the purview of the A.P. Act 9 of 1977. The Board Standing Orders also will not apply because they are also earlier to the commencement of the A.P. Act 9 of 1977 and therefore the Joint Collector or the authorities have no jurisdiction to resume the land of the Transferee of assigned land, who has perfected his title by adverse possession by the date of commencement of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.