Allowed

Chintana Krishnaiah, (died) per LRs v. The Joint Collector, West Godavari

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Sept 2024WA/947/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land assigned in 1932 without any non-alienation condition was leased for 99 years in 1966. The court held that only lands assigned with a non-alienation condition qualify as 'assigned land' under the AP Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, so the Act did not apply and resumption was impermissible.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal allowed; Single Judge's judgment dated 14.03.2005 set aside; Joint Collector's order restored; no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Chintana Krishnaiah, (died) per LRs Vs The Joint… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER ♦
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR 5 c
-b

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 947 OF 2005

¶8

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against Order dt. 14.3.2005 WP.No. 21478 of 1994 on the file of the High^Court.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Chintana Krishnaiah, S/o Sreeramulu (died) per LRs,

¶11

Chintana Leela Pushpavathi, W/o. late Satyanrayana Cultivation, T. Narasapuram Village & Mandal, W.G.District.

¶12

Chintana Vamsi Krishna, S/o. late Satyanrayana Cultivation, T. Narasapuram Village & Mandal, W.G.District.

¶13

Appellants 2 & 3 brought on record as LRs of deceased appellant as per Court Order dated 05/02/2007 in WAMP.No.181 of 2007.

¶14

...Appellants

¶15

AND

¶16

The Joint Collector, West Godavari, Eluru.

¶17

Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, W.G.District.

¶18

Mandal Revenue Officer, T. Narasapuram, W.G.District.

¶19

Smt. Devarapalli Chittama, W/o. Anantham, T. Narsapuram, W.G. District.

¶20

Devarapally Venakta Swamy, S/o. Anantham, T. Narasapuram, W.G. District.

¶21

Kakani Mangayya, S/o. Mukayya, T. Narsapuram, W.G.District.

¶22

Devarapalli Bayamma, W/o.Late Daveedu, aged 70 years, R/o.Kamavarapukota Village and Mandal, Eluru District, Erstwhile West Godavari District.

¶23

Chiyyala Veerama, W/o. Late Raju, aged 73 years,^R/o. Kamavarapukota Village and Mandal, Eluru District, Erstwhile West Godavari District.

¶24

Shaik Ramanujamma, W/o. Shaik Mastan, aged 69 years,^R/o. Kamavarapukota Village and Mandal, Eluru District, Erstwhile West Godavari District.

¶25

Devarapalli Venkateswara Rao, S/o Late Anantham, aged⁶⁶ years, R/o. Kamavarapukota Village and Mandal, Eluru District, Erstwhile West Godavari District.

¶26

Devarapalli Vimala, W/o.Late Venkata Swamy, aged about⁶⁶ years, R/o.Mandalapalli Village, Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam District.

¶27

Respondent No.11 was brought on record as L.R of Respondent No.5 as per c.o.dt.27/08/2024 vide I.A.No.2 of 2023.

¶28

Respondents No.7 to 10 are brought on record as L.Rs of Respondent No. 4 as per c.o.dt.27/08/2024 vide I.A.No.1 of 2023. ...Respondents I.A. NO: 1 OF 2005fWAMP. NO: 1788 OF 2005) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay the petitioners dispossession from the subject matter of writ petition lands i.e., AC, 7-85 cents in S.No. 176/1, 176/2, & 178/1 of T. Narasapuram (V&M), W.G.District pending disposal of the above W.A.

¶29

i.A. NO: 2 OF 2007fWAMP. NO: 289 OF 2007^

¶30

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant an interim injunction restraining the respondents their men employees agents and/or any other person claiming any right over the property in question either through or under them pending disposal of the above W.P. in the interest of justice.

¶31

I.A. NO: 3 OF 2007(WAMP. NO: 523 OF 2007^

¶32

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to expedite the hearing of the main WA No. 947/2005 by fixing an early date.

¶33

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶34

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to order notice in the present appeal in W. A. No. 947 of 2005 and Interlocutory Petitions therein to be served by way^{ofsubstituteserviceon} respondents No. 7 to 9 by carrying out publication in any local News Paper, in the interests of justice.

¶35

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI K.CHIDAMBARAM SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI TURAGA SAI SURYA

¶36

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶37

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M P V N V SASTRI

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent No.10: SRI KAMBHAPATI RAMESH BABU The Court made the following order:

¶39

APHC010416532005

¶40

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

£i

AT AMARAVATI

[3488]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶45

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶46

PRESENT

¶47

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶48

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶49

WRIT APPEAL NO: 947/2005

¶50

Between:

¶51

Chintana Krishnaiah, (died) Per Lrs and Others

¶52

...APPELLANT(S)

¶53

AND

¶54

The Joint Collector West Godavari and Others

¶55

...RESPONDENT{S)

¶56

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶57

1.TURAGA SAI SURYA

¶58

¶59

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶60

1.KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU

2.GP FOR REVENUE

3.M P VN VSASTRI

4..

The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Raoj

¶65

An extent of Ac.7.85 cents in R.S.Nos. 176/1,176/2 & 178/1 in T. Narsapuram Village was assigned to late Sri D. Venkat Swamy in the year

¶66

After his demise his son Sri D. Anantham was in possession of the said land. In the year 1964 Sri D. Anantham is said to have leased out this land to Sri Chintana Krishnaiah, who is the 1®' appellant herein.^{Theinformallease.} A

¶67

given in the year 1964 was formalized, by way of a registered deed of lease, dated 13.09.1966. This lease was for a period of 99 years.

¶68

Subsequently, the wife and children of Sri D. Anantham approached the Tahsildar for setting aside the said lease deed and for restitution of the land in their favour. This application was made on the ground that the land in question is assigned land falling within the purview of Section-3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act. 1977 [for short “ the Act. 1977”]. Under the Act. 1977, the legal heirs of the original assignee would be entitled for restitution of the land. This application was dismissed by the Tahsildar on 21.02.1986. The respondents 4 to 6, who had made this application, moved the Revenue Divisional Officer by way an appeal. This appeal was allowed on 02.05.1993. Aggrieved by the same, the 1®* appellant moved the Joint Collector, Eluru. After hearing both sides, the Joint Collector, Eluru appears to have allowed the revision of the 1®* appellant on 26.05.1994

¶69

Aggrieved by the order of the Joint Collector, the respondents 4 to 6 moved the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad by way of W.P.No.21478 of 1994. A learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, after hearing both sides was pleased to allow the Writ Petition, by way of Judgment dated 14.03.2005, and set aside the impugned order, dated 26.05.1994. passed by the Joint Collector.

¶70

Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the 1®* appellant moved the present Writ Appeal. During the pendency of the Writ Appeal, the appellant had passed away and the appellants 2 & 3 are brought^{onrecordashisLrs.} Similarly, the respondent had passed away and the respondents^7to10' were brought on record as her Lrs. Further, the 11*'' respondent was brought on record as Lrs of the 5*'' respondent who passed away during the pendency of the Writ Appeal.

¶71

Heard Sri K. Chidambaram, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Turaga Sai Surya, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for the 10 th respondent and the other respondents were served that no appearance had been entered on their behalf.

¶72

The Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants herein, had contended, before the Learned Single Judge, that a Judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in the case of B. Seetharamamma^/s. The Government of Andhra Pradesh. Rep by its Secretary, Revenue Department & Ors^ covered the issue in as much as the alienations or assessments made in the year 1932 did not contain a non-alienation clause^and the same vras brought in only by way of G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18.06.1954.^Thelearned counsel for the respondents, had contended before the Learned Single Judge that this Judgment has now been overruled by a Divisions^Bench of the. erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vemulapalli China

¶73

1979 (1) ALT 79

¶74

Kondayya & Ors Vs. District Collector, West Godavari at Eluru & Ors^. The Learned Single Judge, accepting the said contention, had allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the orders of the Joint Collector.

¶75

A perusal of the Judgment of the Division Bench in case of Vemulapalli China Kondayya would show that the questions^{raisedbeforethe} Division Bench are:-

¶76

i. Whether the Act, 1977 was retrospective or prospective,

¶77

ii. Whether the land purchased by a landless poor person in good faith and for valuable consideration from the original assignee prior to the commencement of the Act, 1977 would be protected from the provisions of the Act, 1977.

¶78

iii. What would be the meaning of the person occurring in Section-3(5) of the Act, 1977.

¶79

iv. What would be the meaning of the expression “in good faith occurring in sub-section 5 of Section 3 of the Act,^1977.

¶80

V. The Division Bench had not considered the question of whether lands assigned prior to 1954 would answer the description of assigned land in the Act, 1977.

¶81

The Government of Andhra Pradesh had been assigning^landin the Andhra areas of the erstwhile State under the provisions of Board Standing Orders-15 and in the Telangana areas under the provisions of the

¶82

^ 1980(2) ALT 460

¶83

Laoni Rules. As the case before this Court relates to the Andhra area of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, the provisions of Board Standing Order-15 would be applicable. The said Board Standing Order,^{hadnotcontaineda.} clause of non-alienation until 1954. It was in 1954 that the Government, by way of G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18.06.1954, had introduced^thecondition of non-alienation or inalienability.

¶84

As various lands assigned to landless poor persons were being transferred in violation of the condition on non-alienation, the Act, 1977 was enacted for the purposes of protecting the interest of landless poor persons who were selling away the land, assigned to them, due to their poverty and lack of knowledge of their own rights over the land.

¶85

The provisions of the Act, 1977 applies to “assigned^land”.The said term is defined in Section 2(1) in the Act, 1977 in the following manner:-

¶86

<< Section- 2:- Definitions:- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:-

¶87

(1) “assigned land’’ means lands assigned by the Government to the landless poor persons under the rules for the time being in force, subject to the condition of non alienation and includes lands allotted or transferred to landless poor persons under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to land ceilings;' and the word “assigned” shall be constructed accordingly’

¶88

Subsequently, the provision has been amended as reads as

¶89

follows by way of amendment with effect from 31.07.2023:-

¶90

(1) “assigned land” means [lands or house sites assigned] by the Government to the [landless or homeless poor persons] under the rules^{forthetimebeinginforce,} subject to the condition of non-alienation [within a period of twenty (20) years from the date of assignment in the case of lands assigned for agricultural purpose, and within a period of ten (10) years from the date of assignment in case of house sites], “

¶91

¶92

As the present transaction is prior to 31.07.2023, the un-amended provision would be applicable. This provision clearly states that a land assigned by the State would fall within the meaning of the term “assigned land” only when there is an absolute bar on alienation of the land except to the extent of mortgaging the land to a land bank or any other designated financial institution.

¶93

To put it another way, it is only lands which are assigned^witha condition of non-alienation that would fall within the ambit of the Act, 1977. Any other land assigned in any another manner and without a condition of non-alienation would not fall within the four corners of the Act 1977.

¶94

It mayTalso be noted that a Learned Single Judge of^theerstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in the case of Shaik Abdul Kalam Azad & Ors Vs. A. Babu & Ors^ had taken a similar view.

¶95

In the present case, the alienation admittedly is in the year 1932 when there was no condition of non-alienation available in the Board Standing Order. Consequently, the land would not fall within the meaning of “assigned •land” and therefore, the provisions of the Act, 1977 would not be applicable to this land.

¶96