GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHERversusK. VARALAKSHMIAND OTHERS

•                  [2014) 11 S.C.R. 203

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER                         A
                              v.
             K. VARALAKSHMIAND OTHERS
              (Civil Appeal No. 3673 of 2009)
                   NOVEMBER 27, 2014
                                                                 B
    [M.Y. EQBAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]

     Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of
Transfers) Act, 1977- s.3- Prohibition on transfer of assigned
lands - On facts, prior to commencement of the Act, original     C
assignee sold land for consideration to landless poor person
- His heirs sold it to plaintiff for valuable consideration -
Resumption of land by Urban Development Authority -
Challenged to - Held: Plaintiff proved the assignment deed
and also led the evidence and proved that they are the bona      D
fide purchaser for valuable consideration - High Court rightly
held that the transactions made in favour of the plaintiff and
his predecessors are fully saved by sub-section (5) of Section
3 of the Act.
                                                                 E
     Dismissing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: It is the clear case of the plaintiff-respondent
that in 1971 their original assignee sold the land for
consideration to 'DR', who was a landless poor person.
The said 'DR' was in the cultivating possession of the           F
land and growing crop. After his death, his wife and sons
succeeded the property and continuously remained in
cultivating possession till 1982 when they sold the land
to plaintiff in consideration of Rs.20,0001-. The plaintiff-
respondents proved the assignment deed and also led              G
the evidence and proved that they are the bona fide
purchaser for valuable consideration. No evidence
whatsoever was adduced on behalf of the defendants-
appellants in support of their defence. The finding
                            203                                  H
A
    204      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 11 S.C.R.


  recorded by the High Court that the transactions made
                                                                            •
  in favour of the plaintiff and his predecessors are fully
  saved by sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Andhra
  Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act,
  1977 is accepted. There is no reason to differ with the
B findings recorded by the High Court. [Paras 12, 13, 14]
  [209-H; 210-A-E]

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    3673 of 2009.

C       From the Judgment & Order dated 16.03.2004 of the High
    Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Appeal
    No. 2784 of 1996.

          G. Prabhakar, Prerna Singh, C.K. Sucharita for the
o Appellants.
        V.V.S. Rao, John Mathew, Sridhar Potaraju, Vijayshree
    Patnaik, A. Mukunda Rao for the Respondents.         *


          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
         M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed
    against the judgment and order dated 16.3.2004 passed by the
    High Court of Andhra Pradesh whereby appeal preferred by the
    plaintiffs was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by
F   the trial court in the suit instituted by the plaintiffs has been set
    aside.
       2.lhe factual matrix of the case is that the suit schedule
  property admeasuring about five acre in Survey No.71/3 of
  Paradesipalem was Poramboke land. One Sagiraju
G Bangaramma was in possession and enjoyment of the said
  land by raising agricultural crops since 1950. By virtue of her
  possession, the suit property was assigned to her by the first
  defendanUappellant through a rough patta in R.C.No.4118 of
  1961. She continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the
H suit property as absolute owner, and by way of a registered sale
•   GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. K.
        VARALAKSHMI [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
deed dated 12.1.1970 (Ex.A-2), she sold the suit property for
                                                                205


                                                                        A
a valuable consideration to one Durga Ramalingeswara Rao.
Subsequently, said Ramalingeswara Rao died and after his
death his wife Durga Venkata Ratnam and his sons succeeded
to the suit schedule property, who by sale deed dated
27 .1.1982 (Ex.A-1) sold the suit land to the plaintiffs for valuable   B
consideration and passed on the possession thereof.

     3. In March, 1988, the second defendant/appellant being
Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (in short,
'VUDA') fixed boundary demarcations to a part of the plaintiffs         c
land, purporting to act under the directions of the District
Collector of Visakhapatnam. The plaintiffs being absolute
owners and possessors of the land got issued notice under
Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code requesting defendants
to desist from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession.             D
Thereafter, plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration of title and
permanent injunction.

     4. It was averred in the plaint that the original assignee i.e.
S. Bangaramma was a landless poor, who sold the suit land
in the year 1970 to another landless poor Durga                         E
Ramalingeswara Rao, who purchased it in good faith for
valuable consideration much earlier to the enactment of A.P.
Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (in short,
"Act of 1977"). The heirs of the said Ramalingeswara Rao in
turn sold the suit land to landless poor, who are the plaintiffs-       F
respondents. herein. Hence, both the sale transactions are
protected under Section 3(5) of the aforesaid Act. If the
Government wants to exercise its right of resumption it is bound
by law to issue a show cause notice to the persons who
obtained right and interest in the said land and to the said            G
persons in actual possession of the land.

    5. The first Appellant-defendant in its written statement
opposing the suit denied assignment of land to Sagiraju
Bangaramma. Defendant contended that the land assigned to               H
    206       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2014) 11 S.C.R. •


A the plaintiff's predecessors in title Bangaramma is not the suit
  land. It is only the land covered by Survey No.71/10 which is
  only Ac.4-94 cents. As the land was assigned subject to certain
  conditions and violation of such conditions by the assignee
  would entitle to resume the land assigned even suo motu
B without any notice or payment of any compensation. Even the
  land in Survey No.71/10 which was assigned to Bangaramma
  was cancelled vide Rc.No.904/87/0t.30-4-87 for violation of the
  conditions as she failed to bring the lands under cultivation. The
  VUDA - defendant no.2 pleaded for dismissal of the suit on
C the ground that the assigned land is not alienable but is. only
  heritable. Any alienations made are illegal, void and
  unenforceable.

         6. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the suit
0 land is an assigned land and Sagiraju Bangaramma- the
  '·assignee had no right to alienate the property. With regard to
    relief of injunction, the trial court observed that as there is no
    resumption of the assigned land by defendant no.1 and,
    moreover, when the plaintiff is not entitled for the declaration
E he cannot be granted any injunction which is an equitable relief.
    Moreover, the plaintiff has not established his possession over
    the suit schedule property on the date of filing of the suit as no
    documentary evidence or oral evidence was adduced on his
                                    •
    behalf in that regard.
F       7. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the plaintiffs
  preferred appeal before the High Court, which decr!'led the suit
  filed by the plaintiffs holding that the plaintiffs led in oral and
  documentary evidence and proved Ex.A 1 and Ex.A2, and the
  Government did not examine any responsible officer nor
G marked relevant documents to demonstrate the assignment in
  favour of Bangaramma. Learned Single Judge of the High
  Court observed as under:

          "20. Unfortunately the court below found that the plaintiffs
H         could establish the transaction between the legal
•   GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. K.
        VARALAKSHMI [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
                                                          \
    representatives of Ramalingeswara Rao and the plaintiffs,
                                                              207


                                                                    A
    but the transaction between Bangaramma and
    Ramalingeswara Rao could not be established. This view
    of the court below cannot be ccepted for two reasons; firstly
    the plaintiffs successfully proved the transaction between
    Bangaramma and Ramalingeswara Rao through Ex.A2                 B
    and also proved the transaction between the legal
    representatives of Ramalingeswara Rao and the plaintiffs
    through Ex.A-1. Therefore, the plaint averments, evidence
    of plaintiffs and the documents are quire consistent.

                             )()()()()(
                                                                    c
    26. The cumulative effect is that there is no evidence
    whatsoever, whether oral or documentary, on behalf of the
    defendants and the plaintiffs could successfully prove their
    case by examining PW's 1 & 2 and by marking Ex.A-1 and          D
    A-2. When that is the evidence on record on behalf of the
    plaintiffs and no evidence whatsoever on behalf of the
    defendants and nothing contra could be elicited by the
    second defendant from the cross-examination of PW.1 and
    2·, I am of the view that the Court below was in error in       E
    holding that the plaintiffs, though could prove the sale
    transaction between the legal representatives of said
    Ramalingeswara Rao and the plaintiffs, could not prove the
    sale transaction and the consequent title of the vendors of
    the plaintiffs."                                                F
     8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record. It has been pleaded on behalf of the
plaintiffs-respondents that the schedule property measuring 5
acres in S.No.71/3 was in the possession and enjoyment of one
Smt. Sagi Raju Bangaramma since 1960 and she had been               G
cultivating the said land since then. She had also been
assigned a rough patta for the said land in R.C. No.4118/61. It
has been contended on behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs that
the said Survey No.71/3 was subsequently sub-divided into
Survey No.71/10 and the respondents are in possession of the        H
A
    208       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 11 S.C.R.


  said land. The plaintiffs purchased the suit land from the
                                                                       •
  successors of the deceased Durga Ramalingeshwar Rao for
  a valuable consideration of Rs.20,000/- vide registered sale
  deed dated 27.1.1982 and since then they have been
  cultivating on it. It is pleaded by the plaintiffs that they were
B landless poor persons as contemplated under Section 3(5) of
  the Act of 1977. Respondents have denied that there was any
  show cause notice dated 24.3.1983 issued to the original
  possessor of the land in S.No.71/3 and that subsequent to the
  said show cause notice the assignment of the said land was
c cancelled on 15.5.1983 for violation of any condition of the
  assignment.

        9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents
  submitted that the respondents have established by oral as well
  as documentary evidence that the transfer of the land from Sagi
0
  Raju Bangaramma to Durga Ramalingeshwar Rao was prior
  to the commencement of the Act of 1977 and that he was a
  landless poor person as contemplated under Section 3(5) of
  the said Act. Learned counsel further submitted that even if the
E aforesaid Act is considered to. be retrospective in effect, it
  would be irrelevant for the purposes of this case as the transfer
  is clearly protected by Section 3(5) of the Act.

       10. Before appreciating the rival contentions made by the
  learned counsel, we would like to refer Section 3 of Andhra
F Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977,
  which is the sheet anchor of the appellants' case. Section 3
  reads as under:-

          "Section 3: Prohibition of transfer of assigned lands
G         (1) Where before or after the' commencement of this Act,
          any land has been assigned by the Government to a
          landless poor person for purposes of cultivation or as a
          house site, then, notwithstanding anything to the contrary
          in any other law for the time being in force or in the deed
          of transfer or other document relating to such land, it shall
H
•       GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. K.
            VARALAKSHMI [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
                                                                209


        not be transferred and shall be deemed never to have been      A
        transferred, and accordingly no right or title in such
        assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land
        by such transfer.

        (2) No landless poor person shall transfer any assigned        8
        land, and no person shall acquire any assigned land, either
        by purchase, gift, lease, mortgage, exchange or otherwise.

        (3) Any transfer or acquisition made in contravention of the
        provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be
        deemed to be null and void.                                    C

        (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to any
        transaction of the nature referred to in sub-section (2) in
        execution of a decree or order of a civil court or of any
        award or order of any other authority.                         D

        (5) Nothing in this section shall apply to an assigned land
        which was purchased by a landless poor person in good
        faith and for valuable consideration from the original
        assignee or his transferee prior to the commencement of        E
        this Act and which is in the possession of such person for
        purposes of cultivation or as a house site on the date of
        such commencement."

         11. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would show
    that sub-section (1) to (4) applies to all cases where the         F
    assignment of lands was made either before or after the
    commencement of the Act by the Government to a land less
    poor person for the purpose of cultivation or a house site.
    However, sub-section (5) of Section 3 makes an exception in
    cases where the land has been so assigned has been                 G
    purchased by another landless poor person in good faith or for
    valuable consideration from the original assignee or the
    transferee prior to the commencement of the Act.

        12. It is the clear case of the plaintiff respondent that in   H
A
    210          SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2014] 11 S.C.R.


  1971 their original assignee Sagiraju Bangaramma sold the
                                                                        •
  land for consideration to Durga Ramalingeswara Rao, who was
  a landless poor person. The said Ramalingeswara Rao, was
  in the cultivating possession of the land and growing crop. After
  his death, his wife Smt. Venkata Ratnam and sons succeeded
B the property and continuously remained in cultivating
  possession till 1982 when they sold the land to plaintiff· in
  consideration of Rs.20,000/-. The plaintiff-respondents proved
  the assignment deed and also led the evidence and proved that
  they are the bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration.
C Curiously enough, no evidence whatsoever was adduced on
  behalf of the defendants-appellants in support of their defence,
  which has been rightly noticed by the High Court.

         13. In the background of these facts, we are fLJlly in
    agreement with the finding recorded by the High Court thatthe
0
    transactions made in favour of the plaintiff and his
    predecessors are fully saved by sub-section (5) of Section 3
    of the Act.

       14. Hence, we do not find any reason to differ with the
E findings recorded by the High Court.

        15. This appeal has, therefore, no merit and is liable to be
    dismissed.

F   Nidhi Jain                                      Appeal dismissed.