E Nallakka Vs v Chandrasekhar Naidu

The case of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner had purchased Ac.0.29 cents of land in Sy.No.235 and Ac.2.48 cents in sy.No.243/3 of Cherlopalle Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, by way of a registered deed of sale dated 09.10.1968. The land admeasuring Ac.0.29 cents was originally assigned to one B. Subbaiah sometime in the year 1940 and the land admeasuring Ac.2.48 cents was assigned to Sri J. Nagadu in the year 1940. These lands were purchased from the original assignees / their legal heirs.

¶41

The 3^rd respondent had passed an order of resumption, on 16.08.1987, on the ground that the father of the petitioner had purchased these lands in violation of the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short „the Act‟). Aggrieved by the same, the father of the petitioner filed W.P.No.12556 of 1999 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh. This writ petition came to be disposed of with a direction to the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar to reconsider the issue with reference to Section 3(5) of the Act. This provision stipulated that if any landless poor

¶42

3

¶43

RRR,J & Dr. KMR,J W.A.Nos.373 & 572/2021

¶44

person had bona fidely purchased any assigned land, the same would be saved. After an enquiry, the 3^rd respondent found that the father of the petitioner was a landless poor person and restored the land, to the father of the petitioner, by proceedings dated 13.11.1990. After the father of the petitioner had passed away in November 2003, the 3^rd respondent again initiated proposals, for resumption of the land, on the ground that the land had been converted into non-agricultural use, for the purpose of setting up a brick kiln. After enquiry, the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar passed an order of resumption dated 19.06.2006 on the ground that the land had been converted to nonagricultural purpose, which would amount to violation of the conditions of assignment.

¶45

Aggrieved by the said order of resumption, dated 19.06.2006, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2^nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. This appeal was allowed by the 2^nd respondent, by an order dated 15.03.2008. The 3^rd respondent filed a revision petition, against the appellate order, before the 1^st respondent-Joint Collector, who allowed the revision petition, by order dated 30.10.2009, and restored the order of resumption passed by the 3^rd respondent.

¶46

The contention of the petitioner is that, under the provisions of the Act, only lands assigned with a condition of absolute non alienation would fall within the definition of assigned land to which the Act would apply. The condition of non-alienation was introduced, for assigned lands, in the year

¶47

4

¶48

RRR,J & Dr. KMR,J W.A.Nos.373 & 572/2021

¶49

1954 by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18.06.1954. The land in question had been assigned in the year 1940, without any condition of non-alienation, and consequently, the Act itself would not be applicable.

¶50

Respondents 4 to 10 impleaded themselves in the writ petition. The case of these respondents is that an extent of Ac.2.48 cents of land in Sy.No.243/3 was assigned to their grandfather, namely, Late Sri J. Nagadu, in the year 1926 in the form of DKT patta and that all the subsequent proceedings between the petitioner and the official respondents would have to be set aside and they would have to be put in possession of the said land. Respondents 4 to 10 supported their case on the ground that the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition had issued a notice under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 27.02.1987 calling for objections from these respondents in relation to the proposal to acquire the land. Though the acquisition proceedings were subsequently withdrawn, the fact remains that notices were issued to these respondents because the revenue authorities had accepted that they were the owners and occupants of the land. Apart from this, respondents 4 to 10 also claim that their names were included in the revenue records demonstrating their claim over the land.

¶51

The 3^rd respondent filed a counter on behalf of respondents 1 to

¶52

In this counter affidavit, it is stated that the aforesaid extents of land were originally assigned to Sri B. Subbaiah in the year 1955, after G.O.Ms.No.1142 dated 18.06.1954 had been issued. Subsequently, steps were taken for

¶53

5

¶54

RRR,J & Dr. KMR,J W.A.Nos.373 & 572/2021

¶55

resuming this land on the ground that the father of the petitioner had purchased these lands by way of registered deed of sale dated 09.10.1968 and the same was in violation of the patta conditions. The land was restored to the father of the petitioner on account of the directions of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.Nol12556 of 1989 and the subsequent enquiry by the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar.

¶56

The land was again resumed under proceedings of the Tahsildar, dated 19.06.2006, on the ground that the petitioner had converted the land to non-agricultural purpose which was manufacture of bricks. This order was successfully challenged before the Revenue Divisional Officer. However, the said order came to be set aside by the Joint Collector, after conduct of field inspection on 20.05.2009. Consequent to the said order of the Joint Collector and further directions to enter the lands in the prohibitory list, the same was notified under Section 4(1)(c) of the Act by proceedings dated 30.10.2009.

¶57

The 3^rd respondent submits that the land has been resumed on

¶58

the ground that the land had been converted to non-agricultural purpose for running a brick kiln. Apart from this, it is found that the family of the petitioner would not fall under landless poor category as the petitioner was doing business of manufacture of bricks in an extent of another Ac.2.00 of land, taken on lease from a private pattadar. Apart from this, the family members of

¶59

the petitioner are said to have 5.00 hectares of quarry and crusher in Durgasamudram Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, and residential houses in

¶60

6

¶61

RRR,J & Dr. KMR,J W.A.Nos.373 & 572/2021

¶62

Cherlopalle Village. Apart from this, the petitioner is also said to have purchased some more land in the Village and all this would go to show that the petitioner and his family are financially sound.

¶63

A learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering all the above submissions, had allowed the writ petition, by an order dated 03.02.2020, holding that the land in question appears to have been assigned prior to 1954 in as much as there is alienation on 05.01.1946. Consequently, the provisions of the Act would not be available and the order passed by the 1^st respondent-Joint Collector, is without jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge had also held that the claims of respondents 4 to 10 cannot be gone into, in this writ petition, as these relate to a private dispute between the petitioner and respondents 4 to 10 and the same would be more appropriately decided in an appropriate forum.

¶64

Aggrieved by this order and judgment, dated 03.02.2020, respondents 4 to 10 moved W.A.No.373 of 2021 and the State has moved W.A.No.572 of 2021.

¶65

Sri Korrapati Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 10 would contend that the ancestors of these respondents had been assigned these lands in the year 1926 itself and consequently, the petitioner cannot have any rights over the subject land. In any event, the order of resumption passed against the petitioner, on the ground of conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes cannot be faulted. Once such

¶66

7

¶67

RRR,J & Dr. KMR,J W.A.Nos.373 & 572/2021

¶68

an order of resumption is upheld, the land would vest with the Government and the same can again be restored to respondents 4 to 10 as the legal heirs of the original assignees in the year 1926.

¶69

The State contends that the assignment was in the year 1955, after G.O.Ms.No.1142 had been issued on 18.06.1954 and consequently, the conditions of non-alienation, required for the land to be brought under the ambit of the Act, is available and the land would have to be treated as assigned land. Once the land is treated as assigned land, the provisions of the Act would be applicable and respondents 1 to 3 would have jurisdiction to pass orders under the provisions of the Act.

¶70

The State would also contend that even otherwise, there is a condition of non-conversion to other purposes and it would always be available to the State to resume the lands when such conversion takes place. In fact, the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar and the 1^st respondent-Joint Collector had sought resumption of the land on the ground of conversion to non-agricultural purposes and not on the question of whether the land was assigned land or not whether alienation of the land by the father of the petitioner violated the provisions of the Act.

¶71

Sri K. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the land was assigned much prior to 1954 as the deeds of sale mentioned in various proceedings show that the land had been assigned, as early as 1940. He would submit that in such circumstances, the

¶72

8

¶73

RRR,J & Dr. KMR,J W.A.Nos.373 & 572/2021

¶74

respondent-authorities could not have invoked the provisions of the Act itself. He would further submit that the ground of conversion of land is also not available as the Joint Collector, in his field inspection, had stated that the land was under cultivation at the time of inspection.

¶75

Consideration of the Court :

¶76

A perusal of the orders passed by the revenue authorities in this case, is necessary for ascertaining the facts. The proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 13.11.1990, under which the land had been restored to the father of the petitioner, state that one Sri Nakkala Chinna Muni Gadu was assigned the land in question on 05.01.1946 under Darkhast Rules. The assignee sold this land to Sri Konangi Nallaiah. Thereafter, Sri Konangi Nallaiah sold this land to Sri E. Munirathnam Naidu, on 04.01.1960, under a registered deed of sale. Sri E. Munirathnam Naidu sold this land to Sri V. Venkata Rama Naidu, on 12.08.1960, by way of a registered deed of sale. The father of the petitioner purchased this land from Sri V. Venkata Rama Naidu under a registered deed of sale, dated 09.10.1968. Subsequently, the Mandal Revenue Officer had cancelled the assignment by proceedings dated 16.01.1987 and the same came to be challenged before the erstwhile High Court in W.P.No.12556 of 1989, wherein the resumption order was set aside and the matter was remanded back for further enquiry. The Mandal Revenue Officer on this basis and after holding that the father of the petitioner was a landless poor person had restored the land.

¶77

9

¶78

RRR,J & Dr. KMR,J W.A.Nos.373 & 572/2021

¶79

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati, again issued proceedings, dated 19.06.2006, resuming the land. In this proceeding, it is stated that the father of the petitioner had purchased the land from the original assignee Sri B. Subbaiah, due to which the land was resumed in the aforesaid proceedings and subsequently, restored on the ground that the father of the petitioner was a landless poor person. The date of assignment to Sri B. Subbaiah is stated to be 24.06.1955 on the basis of the entries made in the “A” Register in respect of Sy.No.235 to an extent of Ac.0.29 cents.

¶80

The said order of resumption dated 19.06.2006 came to be set aside by the order in appeal, dated 15.03.2008, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. In these proceedings, the Revenue Divisional Officer did not go into the flow of title. The appellate order came to be challenged before the Joint Collector, who passed proceedings dated 30.10.2009. In these proceedings, the Joint Collector stated that the extent of Ac.0.29 cents of land in Sy.No.235 as well as the extent of Ac.2.48 cents in Sy.No.243/3 was assigned to Sri B. Subbaiah and the consequent purchase by the father of the petitioner by way of registered deed of sale, dated 9.10.1968, was in violation of the conditions of assignment.

¶81

From the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 13.11.1990, it appears that Ac.2.48 cents of land had been assigned to Sri N. Chinna Muni Gadu, on 05.09.1946 and the land admeasuring Ac,.0.29 cents in Sy.No.235 appears to have been assigned to Sri B. Subbaiah on 24.06.1955. It is curious

¶82

10

¶83

RRR,J & Dr. KMR,J W.A.Nos.373 & 572/2021

¶84

to note that the Mandal Revenue Officer in his order dated 13.11.1990 initially states that an extent of Ac.2.48 cents in Sy.No.243/3 as well as Ac.0.29 cents in Sy.No.235 were purchased from the original assignee Sri B. Subbaiah. However, in the subsequent part of the same proceedings, the Mandal Revenue Officer records that the “A” register shows assignment of only Ac.0.29 cents in respect of Sy.No.235, in favour of Sri B. Subbaiah. It is apparent, from this statement that Ac.2.48 cents was assigned in the year 1946 while Ac.0.29 cents was assigned on 24.06.1955.

¶85

It is now settled law that any land assigned prior to 18.06.1954, when G.O.Ms.No.1142 was issued, would not answer the description of assigned land and would not be within the ambit of the Act. (Please see Raavi Satish Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors .,¹ paras 25 to 28 and 43 D & E; P.V. Rajendra Kumar and Ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.,² and G. Satyanarayana v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh ,³ Paras 112 and 113.

¶86

In such circumstances, none of respondents 1 to 3 had any jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of the Act to resume the land, admeasuring Ac. 2.48 cents, from the petitioner.

¶87

1 2013 (2) ALD 1, 2013 (1) ALT 774, 2013 ALT (Rev.) 75

¶88

2 2011(3) ALD 571

¶89

3 2014 (3) ALT 473, 2014 ALT (Rev.) 161

¶90

11

¶91

RRR,J & Dr. KMR,J W.A.Nos.373 & 572/2021

¶92

As far as Ac.0.29 cents of land in Sy.No.235 is concerned, the same appears to have been assigned with the condition of non-alienation and the provisions of the Act would be applicable.

¶93

Respondents 1 to 3 have relied heavily upon the conditions stipulated under G.O.Ms.No.1142 dated 18.06.1954 to contend that breach of conditions set out in G.O.Ms.No.1142, including the condition that cultivation of the land should be done under the provisions of the assignee and the member of the family of the assignee. Respondents 1 to 3 contend that breach of these conditions would be sufficient for resumption of the land. In view of the fact that Ac.2.48 cents of land had been assigned prior to G.O.Ms.No.1142 dated 18.06.1954, the said provisions would not apply. However, the respondents 1 to 3 contend that patta, under which these lands had been assigned, is said to have contained a condition that the land would not be used for non agricultural purposes and the land can still be resumed, under Board Standing Order 15. This court, in Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University vs. V.V. Satyanarayana and Ors.,⁴ paras 20 and 21; C. Rajamma v. District Collector⁵ ; Kanumuri Anji Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh⁶ ; Katta Rattamma v. Gannamaneni Kotaiah :⁷ ; The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Vs. L. Ramesh and Ors.,⁸ , Para 25; Pasupuleti

¶94

4 2024 SCC OnLine AP 4468

¶95

5 (1995) 1 AP LJ 334 : 1995 AIHC 4159 : (1995) 1 ALD 768 : (1995) 1 ALT 681

¶96

6 1960 (2) An. W.R. 272

¶97

7 1975 (2) An. W.R. 122

¶98

8 2023 (3) ALT 480

¶99

12

¶100

RRR,J & Dr. KMR,J W.A.Nos.373 & 572/2021

¶101

Krishnamurthy vs. Annadasu Bapanayya⁹ and Yatam Bangaru Venkamma and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.¹⁰ , Para 102: consistently had held that Board Standing Order 15 does not have the force of law. Further, the respondents have not produced the assignment patta, to show whether such a condition was incorporated.

¶102

Despite these lacunae, this court deems it appropriate to go into this question, so as to resolve this question and foreclose any further litigation, in this regard. The findings of the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar, in the proceedings dated 19.06.2006 was that the land had been converted to non-agricultural purposes as manufacture of bricks was being carried on in the land. This finding was disputed by the petitioner before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Joint Collector. To obviate any further dispute in this regard, the Joint Collector had conducted a personal inspection of the site on 20.05.2009, in the presence of the petitioner. Paragraph-13 of the order, dated 30.10.2009 is relevant and is extracted below:

¶103

“13. I have inspected the land in s.No.235 extent 0.29 cents and S.No.243/3 extent 2.48 acres of Cherlopalle Village on 20.05.2009 along with the Tahsildar, Tirupati (R) and the respondent Sri V. Chandrasekhar Naidu after advance intimation. The lands in question are at present under the occupation of the respondent Sri V. Chandra Sekhar Naidu. Part of it is lying vacant and in the remaining portion about one acre is leveled recently after manufacture of bricks and paddy is cultivated.

¶104

9 (1956) ALT 566 : (1956) AN. W.R. 719

¶105

10 AIR 2021 AP 22

¶106

13

¶107

RRR,J & Dr. KMR,J W.A.Nos.373 & 572/2021

¶108

The statement of the Joint Collector is that about Ac,.1.00 appears to have been used for manufacture of bricks and that paddy was being cultivated in this land on the date of inspection. There is a clear finding that the remaining land was vacant. There is no finding that bricks were being manufactured on the date of inspection.

¶109

In such circumstances, the contention of the respondents that the entire land had been converted for non-agricultural purposes and that the land continued to be utilized for non-agricultural purposes cannot be accepted.

¶110

Before parting with this case, this Court is constrained to make one observation. The statements in the orders passed by respondents 1 to 3 and the statement in the counter affidavit to the effect that the petitioners‟ family had bettered its financial situation by taking up business and acquiring houses was, in some manner, sufficient to resume the land, appears to come out of a mindset that the landless poor persons who had been assigned lands cannot better themselves and would have to remain landless poor persons, for generations, to eke out their livelihood only on the land given to them. It appears that any improvement in their condition of life would, in some manner, disqualify them to hold the lands assigned to them. This mindset requires to be changed as the very purpose of assignment of lands to the landless poor persons is to assist them to obtain a better future for themselves and for their children.

¶111

14

¶112

RRR,J & Dr. KMR,J W.A.Nos.373 & 572/2021

¶113

As far as the claims of respondents 1 to 4 are concerned, they are, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, all matters of private disputes which can be resolved only before an appropriate forum and not by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶114

For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and the same is affirmed. Accordingly, these writ appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶115