2025 INSC 5
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. AND
HON’BLE SANJAY KAROL, JJ.)
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
CHEVELLA ...
Petitioner
VERSUS
MOHD.SYEED ATHER
Respondent
Civil
Appeal Nos. 1919-1922 of 2016 With Civil Appeal No.1928 of 2016 Civil Appeal
No.1927 of 2016 Civil Appeal No.1926 of 2016 Civil Appeal No.1924 of 2016 Civil
Appeal No.1923 of 2016 Civil Appeal No.1925 of 2016 Civil Appeal No.1930 of
2016 Civil Appeal Nos……..……… of 2025 (@ SLP(C) Nos. 19725-19726 of 2021)-Decide
on 02-01-2025
Civil
Prohibition of
Transfer of Assigned Land: Misconception – Remand back
(A) Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands
(Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 – Section 3(2) - Prohibition of Transfer of Assigned Land – Non-Alienability
Clauses – Misconception
- Fresh Consideration by High Court - In
a series of appeals concerning the transfer of land assigned under the Andhra
Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, the Supreme Court
set aside a common judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which allowed
several writ petitions challenging the orders of government officers regarding
the resumption of assigned lands. The Supreme Court found that the High Court
had misconceived the facts concerning the assignments of land on collection of
market value and failed to appreciate relevant laws, especially concerning
non-alienability conditions of assigned lands as per the revised assignment
policy. The Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration,
directing the High Court to consider relevant precedents.
(Para
10)
(B) Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands
(Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 – Section 3(2) - A.P. (Telangana Area,
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands) Act, 1950 – Section 47, 50-B - Transfer of
Assigned Lands - Validity of Sale Transactions - Provisions inapplicable - The
Supreme Court addressed the validity of sale transactions pertaining to lands
purportedly granted under the Telangana Tenancy Act, 1950. The Court held that
permissions granted under Section 47 of the Act and validation under Section
50-B relate only to patta lands and do not legitimize transfers of government
assigned lands. The High Court's conclusion that such permissions imply validation
for lands granted on market value was found erroneous. The judgment highlighted
that the use of these provisions does not confer the right to transfer lands
assigned under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition
of Transfer) Act, 1977.
(Para
8)
JUDGMENT
C.T. Ravikumar, J. :- This bunch of cases belong to
three categories, but all carry the same question(s) for resolution. The
first batch of appeals viz. Civil Appeal Nos.1919-1922 of 2016 are
directed against the common judgment and order dated 02.09.2008 passed by
the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in quartet Writ
Petitions viz., WP Nos. 13227/2005, 13228/2005, 13229/2005 and 13230/2005. The
second batch of appeals viz., Civil Appeal Nos.1923-1930 of 2016, except Civil
Appeal No.1929 of 2016 which was de-tagged as per order dated 31.07.2024 are
directed against the judgments and orders in different Writ Petitions carrying
the same questions arising out of the identical factual situations and allowed
in terms of the common judgment and order dated 02.09.2008, which is under
challenge in the first batch of Civil Appeals. The third batch contains two
Special Leave Petitions viz., Nos.19725-19726 of 2021, again carrying the same
questions arising out of identical factual situations and allowed in terms of
the common judgment and order dated 02.09.2008, which is under challenge in the
first batch of Civil Appeals. In such circumstances, leave is granted in the
said Special Leave Petitions, as well.
2.
The State of Andhra Pradesh and/or its officers are the appellants in all the
captioned appeals. Since we have noted that the second and third batch of
appeals carry challenge against the judgments rendered relying on the common
judgment dated 02.09.2008, which is under challenge in the first batch of
appeals, we will proceed to consider the first batch of appeals and needless to
say that the fate of the other appeals would depend upon the outcome of such
consideration.
3.
Writ Petition Nos.13227-13230 of 2005 were filed challenging the orders passed
by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District in
the State of Andhra Pradesh in Proceeding No.D/1229/2003 dated 30.04.2005 and
further proceedings in appeals against the same, of the Deputy Collector and
the Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in
Proceeding No.B/1139/1998 dated 15.02.2003. As per the order dated 15.02.2003,
finding evidence established against the assignees/purchasers, in respect of
land comprised in Survey No.37 and 38/1 situated at Khanamet village classified
as Kharij Khatta Sarkari, to the effect that they had contravened the provision
under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of
the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for
short, ‘the AP AL (POT) Act’), the request of the purchasers/assignees
including the party respondents in the appeals, to drop proceedings based on
the notices issued to them under the said Act and to allow them to
transfer subject lands, were rejected. Consequently, it was ordered there under
to resume the lands involved there under under the custody of the Government
immediately from the purchasers/possessors after duly evicting them according
to the provisions of the AP AL (PoT) Act).
4.
As per proceedings dated 30.04.2005, pursuant to order dated 28.04.2003 of the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a batch of Writ Petitions, the appeals filed
against the aforesaid order dated 15.02.2003 were considered by the Revenue
Divisional Officer. Upon consideration, those appeals were dismissed finding no
reason whatsoever to interfere with the order of the Deputy Collector and the
Mandal Revenue Officer dated 15.02.2003.
5.
In the aforesaid quartet Writ Petitions and connected matters, after
assimilating the contentions, based on various Government Orders and the
provisions under the relevant enactment(s), the High Court formulated the
points for consideration as under: -
“Whether lands which were granted
Patta under Laoni Rules, 1950 (for short, “the Laoni Rules”) can be resumed
under the provisions of the Act No. 9 of 1977 treating them as assigned lands”.
6.
While challenging the aforesaid orders, evidently, the Writ Petitioners, who
purchased different extents of land in Survey Nos.37 and 38/1 of Khanamet under
various registered sale deeds, claimed devolution of interest and ownership
rights in respect of parcel(s) of subject land purchased by them through the
original assignees. They, inter alia, contended that the AP AL (PoT) Act is not
applicable to the lands and the subject lands were not assigned lands covered
by the provisions of AL (PoT) Act, which was referred to in the impugned
judgment as ‘Act No. 9 of 1977’. They also contended that there occurred
several transactions in respect of such lands since 1965 and the lands were mutated
in the names of subsequent purchasers. Furthermore, they contended that the
Tehsildar concerned granted permission under Section 47 by validating the
registered sale transactions under Section 50-B of the A.P.
(Telangana Area, Tenancy and Agricultural Lands) Act, 1950 (for short, ‘the
Telangana Tenancy Act’). Evidently, the case of the appellant herein raised to
defend the orders impugned therein that Section 47 and Section 50- B of the
Telangana Tenancy Act are applicable only to patta lands and not the Government
assigned lands as contemplated under the AP AL (PoT) Act and that the
Form-G issued to the original assignees on 08.04.1961, viz., after the
commencement of the Revised Assignment Policy, free of cost without collecting
market value and by virtue of Section 3 of AP AL (PoT) Act, there was
prohibition of transfer of subject lands assigned which are Government lands
and therefore, transfer of such lands was affected in violation of the
conditions, were rejected. Naturally, the further contention that request for
transfer of such lands would be impermissible in view of Section 3 of AP AL
(PoT) Act was also not considered. Consequently, the High Court allowed the
Writ Petition on the following lines: -
“WP
Nos.13227/2005;13228/2005;13229/2005 and 13230 of 2005:
In these writ petitions, sale
deeds were executed after obtaining permissions under Sec. 47 of the
Telangana Tenancy Act, 1950 and sale transactions have been validated under
Sec. 50-B. Since the respondents have not denied the fact of assignment of land
on collection of market value and once permission is granted under Sec. 47 of
the Telangana Tenancy Act and sale translation has been validated under Sec.
50-B, which is validated only to the lands which were granted on market value,
the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Collector & Mandal Revenue
Officer, Serilingampalli Mandal as confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Chevella Division are liable to be set-aside and they are accordingly
set-aside.
All these writ petitions are accordingly
allowed.”
(Emphasis added)
7.
Heard Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
8.
The core contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that the
foundation for the common judgment dated 02.09.2008 is the misconception that
the appellants herein had not denied the fact of assignment of land on
collection of market value. The learned senior counsel drew our attention to
the statements and the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed in WP
No.13227 of 2005 to show that patta certificates in respect of the subject
lands were issued under the provisions of revised assignment policy laid down
in G.O.M.S. No.1406 Revenue Department dated 25.07.1958 in Rule- 9(g) which
clearly mean the assignment of land is free of market value and that land
assigned though inheritable is not alienable. That apart, it is contended that
the High Court had gone wrong in holding that once permission is granted under
Section 47 of the Telangana Tenancy Act and sale transaction has been validated
under Section 50-B, it would invariably suggest that the validation effected
was only pertaining to lands which were granted on market value. It is
also submitted that the High Court had erred in law in not appreciating that
the assignment patta certificate were issued in Rule 9 (g) on 08.04.1961 i.e.,
after the commencement of the revised assignment policy, on free of cost
without collecting market value. It is the further contention that the High
Court has also erred in not appreciating that under the original Laoni Rules,
1950 and under the revised policy published in 1958 viz., G.O.M.S. No.1406
dated 25.07.1958, alienation of assigned land was prohibited. It is
submitted that in regard to questions relating assignment of land under the
revised assignment policy issued under the said GO dated 25.07.1958, the
decision of this Court in Government of AP and Ors. v. Gudepu Sailoo and
Ors. [(2000) 4 SCC 625; 2000 INSC
266] , assumes much relevance and that was also not appreciated by the
High Court. The learned Senior Counsel has also relied on a judgment of
this Court in Yadaiah and Anr. v. State of Telangana and Ors. [(2023) 10 SCC 755; 2023 INSC 664] to
fortify the contention that the High Court had erred in appreciating such
contentions, especially in considering the existence of the condition of non-
alienability in Form G issued on 08.04.1961, as also existence of such a
condition with respect of assigned land under the revised policy published
under the G.O.M.S. No.1406 dated 25.07.1958. The learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant drew our attention to various relevant paragraphs in the decision in
Yadaiah’s case (supra). In paragraph 64, it was held, “once it is determined
that the regulatory regime which was in vogue and held the field as on
21.10.1961 will govern the assignments, then it also stands crystalised that
the 1958 Circular as well as G.O.M. S. No. 1122 being in force at that time,
are clearly applicable to the subject land”. Referring to paragraph 69
of the said judgment, it was submitted in categoric terms this Court held
in Yadaiah’s case (supra) that the provisions of the 1958 circular include a
condition of non-alienability. In short, it is submitted by the learned Senior
Counsel that in the light of the decision in Yadaiah’s case (supra), the
conclusions and the findings in the impugned common judgment dated 02.09.2008
are absolutely unsustainable.
9.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would strenuously oppose the
contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. Before going into the
contentions raised on merits on behalf of the appellant, we will consider
whether the contention that the basis of the decision is based on
misconception with respect to denial or otherwise of the contention of the Writ
Petitioner that assignment of land was on collection of the market value. We
may hasten to add here that we could not find any material produced by the Writ
Petitioners and discussed by the High Court, to show that assignment of subject
lands was on collection of market value. We have perused the counter affidavit
filed on behalf of the appellants. Indisputably, the clear stand taken
thereunder is to the effect that the assignment of subject land was under the
aforesaid revised assignment policy under GO dated 25.07.1958. When that be so,
there cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that the judgment is
founded on misconception. At any rate, it would go to show the impact of such
an assignment was not considered. On that ground itself the impugned judgment
invites interference. That apart, the decisions in Gudepu Sailoo’s case (supra)
is very much relevant to the cases on hand and as such Yadaiah’s case (supra)
also assumes relevance. Hence, on that ground also, the impugned judgment
requires a remand for fresh consideration in the light of the said decisions.
10.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the common judgment dated 02.09.2008 which is
under challenge in
the
first batch of appeals viz. Civil Appeal 1919-1922 of 2016 is set aside and the
Writ Petition Nos.13227-13230 of 2005 are restored into their original numbers
on the files of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for fresh consideration taking
into account the fact that the appellants have denied the claim and contentions
of the Writ Petitions that assignment of lands was on collection of market
value. While considering the same on such remand, the High Court shall also
take into account the decision of this Court in Gudepu Sailoo’s case and in
Yadaiah’s case (supra), more particularly the condition of non-alienability
contained in the revised assignment policy under GOMS No.1406 dated 25.07.1958.
11.
It is inevitable that once the aforesaid common judgment dated 02.09.2008 is
set aside, the impugned judgment in the other connected Civil Appeals are also
to be set aside as they were rendered relying on the said
judgment dated 02.09.2008. Consequently, the impugned judgments in all the
other connected captioned Civil Appeals are also set aside and the Writ
Petitions involved in those appeals are also restored into their original
numbers on the files of the High Court so as to enable the High Court to
consider those Writ Petitions as well, along with Writ Petition
Nos.13227- 13230 of 2005, needless to say, taking into account the
observations made hereinbefore. The appeals are allowed as above. In view of
the fact that the Writ Petitions are of the year 2005 or thereabouts, we
request the High Court to consider all the Writ Petitions involved in these
appeals, which were restored into its files, expeditiously, preferably within a
period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.
12.
To enable the High Court to do so, the Registry is directed to send a copy of
this judgment to the Registrar General of the Andhra Pradesh High Court who on
its receipt shall take necessary action for disposal of the Writ Petitions,
expeditiously as mentioned above.
------