Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"The Government have launched, with effect from the 1st Nov., 1969, a special crash programme for assignment of Government waste lands to the landless poor persons. The rules regarding assignment of land and the conditions incorporated in 'D' Form pattas prohibit alienation of such lands and provide for its resumption as well as re-grant 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 have any provisions 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 objective more effectively, it is considered that a protective legislation is necessary so as to prescribe a punishment to persons who have purchased such lands. Further, there have been requests, from time to time, for enacting a protective legislation against transfers and alienations of assigned land 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 land to the assignees. It has therefore been decided to undertake legislation immediately to prohibit alienation of lands assigned to landless poor persons and to provide for punishment of purchasers of such lands.

8. The second question canvassed by the learned counsel pertains to Sub-section (5) of Section 3, Sub-section (5) is in the nature of an exception to the several provisions contained in Section 3. While Sub-sections (1) to (4) declare that transfer of assigned land, in whatever manner, is void, Sub-section (5) declares that nothing in Section 3 shall apply to an assigned land which was purchased by landless poor person in good faith and for valuable consideration from the original assignee or his transferee prior to the commencement of the Act and which is in the possession of such person for purposes of cultivation or as a house-site, on the date of commencement of the Act. Now, the question is: what is the point of time with reference to which the Tribunal has to see whether the purchaser is a landless poor person, and whether he acted in good faith in purchasing the land? On a careful reading of Sub-section (5), we are of the opinion that the point of time with reference to which the above facts must be determined, is the date of purchase by the person proceeded against. It must have to be seen whether, on the date of purchase, he was a "landless poor person" as defined by the Act; and whether he acted in good faith, and whether he purchased for valuable consideration. He must satisfy the above three conditions, and must also show that he was in possession of the said land for the purpose of cultivation, or as a house-site, as the case may be on the date of commencement of the Act. In such a case, he will be protected by Sub-section (5), and the transfer in his favour will not be hit by the other provisions in Section 3. We are clarifying this aspect because cases may arise where a purchaser, who is being proceeded against under the Act, may have been a landless poor person on the date of his purchase, but may not be a landless poor person on the date of commencement of the Act, or on the date on which proceedings are taken against him under Section 4. For purposes of Section 3 (5) what has to be seen is whether, on the date he purchased the land, he was a landless poor person, and whether he purchased it in good faith, and whether it was for valuable consideration.

9. It is suggested that according to Section 3 (5), the purchaser must also be a landless poor on the date of commencement of the Act. This argument is based upon the words "such person" occurring in the subsection. After giving our due consideration, we are of the opinion that this contention cannot be accepted. An illustration would suffice A, landless poor, is assigned 5 acres of dry land in 1960. He sells it to B, a landless poor person, for valuable consideration, in 1961. B let us say, purchases it in good faith and is personally cultivating it Now, if it is insisted that the purchaser should be a landless poor even on the date of commencement of the Act, then B cannot have the benefit of Section 3 (5), since he cannot be called a landless poor on that date, inasmuch as he is holding 5 acres of dry land. If so, be would lose all the 5 acres. Now take a .slightly different case. Suppose, B purchases 41/2 acres of land from A, and then purchases half an acre of land with the aid of 41/2 acres purchased from A, and thus he is holding 5 acres on the date of commencement of the Act. Now, according to the interpretation suggested, he will lose 41/2 acres. He would, however, have not lost it, had he not purchased the half acre later. It would, in effect, amount to penalizing thrift and efficiency.

5. He, therefore, pleads that this case does not fall under the provisions of Section 3(1) to (3) but attracts provisions under Section 3 (5) ... ..." The tahsildar agreed with the petitioner on points 1, 3 and 4 but did not agree with him on points 2 and 5 and, on that basis came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a landless poor person and that, he has also not purchased the lands in good faith. We find that the conclusion drawn by the Tahsildar is self-contradictory. The Tahsildar has accepted the 4th point raised by the petitioner, which means that the petitioner is a landless poor person. But, while stating his conclusion, the Tahsildar stated that the petitioner is not a landless poor. Further, the Tahsildar, has not given any reasons for holding that the petitioner did not purchase the lands in good faith. We do not want to say more, in view of the fact that we are inclined to remit the matter back to the Tahsildar. We accordingly set aside the order of the Tahsildar and remit the matter back to him for disposal afresh according to law and in the light of the observations contained in this judgment.